Opinion ID: 6330404
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pulse’s Lawsuit

Text: Pulse sued Visa in 2014, alleging the three policies just described violate federal and state antitrust statutes. 7 The case was assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes of the Southern District of Texas. There, the case languished for four years. In 2017, despite the fact that little discovery had been allowed, Visa moved for summary judgment on both the merits and antitrust standing. About a year later, the district court held Pulse lacked antitrust standing and dismissed the case. The court’s terse decision appeared to rest on three holdings. First, the court concluded Pulse had suffered no injury-in-fact. It reasoned that “[e]ven if Visa stopped using [the challenged strategies], Pulse would not necessarily win more business.” It noted that “Mastercard, a major market participant second only to Visa, has adopted a pricing structure like Visa’s,” and that “[t]he rise of fixed fees would not stop if Visa were barred from having them.” Second, the court held Pulse did not suffer an antitrust injury. It reasoned that any injury inflicted by Visa’s policies was felt by merchants and issuers, not Pulse, and that Visa’s policies increased competition rather than harmed it. Third, the court appeared to hold that Pulse was too remote a plaintiff. In its view, because merchants, issuers, and acquirers were the parties potentially harmed by Visa’s conduct, “[t]hey are better and more directly positioned to challenge Visa if they think that this conduct violates the antitrust laws.” Pulse timely appealed. Oral argument was first heard by a panel on October 9, 2019. Following argument, one judge recused. The case was 7 Specifically, Pulse brought claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; claims of restraint of trade, exclusive dealing, and illegal tying under § 1 of the Sherman Act; claims of tortious interference with prospective business relationships under Texas law; and claims under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. 6 Case: 18-20669 Document: 00516267971 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 No. 18-20669 reassigned to a different panel, which—following delays caused by the pandemic and a hurricane—heard argument on January 5, 2022.