Monopolization
OV Loop Inc. v. Mastercard Inc.
Date: May 7, 2025
Issue: Whether Mastercard violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by denying fintech OV Loop access to a service that would let it process Mastercard credit and debit card payments on its mobile wallet platform.
Case Summary: A Boston federal court dismissed a lawsuit claiming that Mastercard violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by denying OV Loop access to a service that would let it process Mastercard credit and debit card payments on its mobile wallet platform.
Mastercard’s network allows merchants to process credit card transactions and acts as a token service provider for digital or mobile card transactions through the Mastercard Digital Enablement Service (MDES). Only approved mobile wallet providers can access this platform.
OV Loop sued Mastercard, alleging it illegally monopolized interstate commerce through anticompetitive practices. OV Loop claimed Mastercard used its size, power and wealth to block emerging tech firms like itself that threaten its control over payment networks and the high fees tied to each transaction. OV Loop pointed to Mastercard’s selective control over its Digital Enablement Service (MDES), which supports mobile wallets like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. According to OV Loop, access to MDES is essential to compete in the mobile wallet market and that Mastercard uses this control to shut out rivals and maintain its alleged monopoly.
Mastercard moved to dismiss the case, arguing that OV Loop undercut its own claim that MDES was “essential” by admitting that other companies could provide similar services. Mastercard also emphasized that OV Loop’s stated goal is to make Mastercard irrelevant. It highlighted OV Loop’s acknowledgment that Mastercard competes with other payment networks, including Visa, which OV Loop claimed holds twice Mastercard’s market share. Mastercard argued that OV Loop’s real grievance is that Mastercard chose not to assist a company trying to surpass it — an action that does not violate antitrust law.
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts determined that OV Loop failed to show Mastercard did not dominate a relevant market. A successful claim for unlawful monopolization requires a plaintiff to show a defendant possessed monopoly power in the relevant market and also acquired or maintained that power by improper means. OV Loop attempted to define two relevant markets. The court agreed that OV Loop plausibly defined the First Relevant Market — mobile wallet contactless payment network processing for banks. But the court found that OV Loop failed to define the second market — universal mobile wallet payment processing using Mastercard-branded cards, as distinct. The court ruled this second market was just a subset of the first. As a result, the court analyzed whether Mastercard held monopoly power in the First Relevant Market.
The court found that Mastercard did not hold monopoly power in the First Relevant Market. It explained that monopoly power involves the ability to control prices or exclude competition, which is typically inferred from a dominant market share. In the court’s view, OV Loop failed to show that Mastercard’s market share reached that level. OV Loop claimed that, as of 2022, Mastercard held 37.4% of credit cards in circulation worldwide and 27.41% of the card network purchase volume. The court noted, however, that a market share between 70% and 90% usually signals monopoly power, which is far above Mastercard’s alleged share. Additionally, the court found that OV Loop did not show that Mastercard could control prices or block competition within the First Relevant Market.
The court also ruled that Mastercard did not engage in anticompetitive conduct. The court explained that even if OV Loop had alleged sufficient facts to show Mastercard held monopoly power in the First Relevant Market, the possession of monopoly power is not unlawful without accompanying anticompetitive conduct. OV Loop claimed that Mastercard’s refusal to grant MDES access qualified as anticompetitive conduct, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that denying MDES access neither changed the market structure nor supported a plausible inference that Mastercard acted to acquire or maintain monopoly power.
Finally, the court ruled that OV Loop did not have a valid claim under the essential facilities doctrine, as it failed to prove that access to Mastercard tokens was truly essential. The essential facilities doctrine requires a dominant firm to grant competitors fair and non-discriminatory access to a facility that they cannot reasonably obtain elsewhere. The court explained that OV Loop admitted that it could access Visa’s tokenization services, which undermined its claim.
Bottom Line: Mastercard’s refusal to provide OV Loop access to its MDES services did not constitute a monopoly.
Documents: Order
