Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01150/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01150-52/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.,

GROVE LIQUORS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VISA, INC., VISA USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-01150 WHA

QUESTIONS FOR 

JUNE 23 HEARING

For our hearing on Thursday, June 23, what does the record tell us on the following

questions: 

1. Before the Liability Shift, was the decision to make merchants

liable for the charge backs made by the issuing bank? What was the role of the

Network in deciding whether to make merchants liable for a charge back? 

2. Same questions for after the Liability Shift. 

3. How does the issuing bank even know that the mag-strip

transaction was on an EMV card and that the Network had not yet certified the

merchant equipment? 

Time will be short. 

Dated: June 21, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-01150-WHA Document 266 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 1