Payment card companies will face a new collective claim at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, The Law Society Gazette reports, extending an already crowded docket of group actions at the UK's specialist competition court.

The claim is the latest in a series. Precise details of the applicant, the proposed class and the damages sought remain to emerge from the filing. What is already clear is the venue and the target: the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London, and the firms that operate the UK's card payment infrastructure.

Why does another CAT claim matter?

The Tribunal has become the default forum for collective competition actions since Parliament opened the door to opt-out class claims under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Nearly a decade on, the docket tells the story. Interchange fee claims, trucking cartels, smartphones, gaming — the list grows.

Card payment schemes have attracted particular attention. Long-running litigation over multilateral interchange fees has already produced collective proceedings before the Tribunal, and regulatory intervention by the Payment Systems Regulator has kept the sector under sustained scrutiny. A fresh claim, whatever its precise contours, lands on well-trodden ground.

The Tribunal's task at this stage is procedural rather than substantive. Under the CAT Rules, a proposed class representative must obtain a collective proceedings order before the claim can proceed. That hurdle requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law, and that the representative is suitable and adequately funded.

What should practitioners take from it?

For defendants in the payments sector, the filing is a reminder that the opt-out regime continues to generate exposure years after its introduction. Collective claims, once certified, bind every UK-domiciled class member who does not opt out. Damages claims in this field have run into the hundreds of millions and, in some instances, billions of pounds.

For claimant firms, the message is equally plain. The CAT remains receptive to well-structured collective applications, and funding arrangements — increasingly litigation funding — continue to underwrite new filings. Expect the usual certification skirmishes: suitability of the representative, commonality of issues, and the economics of the funding package.

What happens next?

The immediate milestones are familiar to anyone who has followed collective proceedings. First, the applicant must serve and the defendants must respond. Then comes the collective proceedings order hearing, where the Tribunal decides whether the case proceeds at all. Certification battles in comparable claims have taken months, occasionally years.

Only then does the substantive competition argument begin, followed — if the claim survives — by a trial of common issues and any individual damages assessment. In short: a long road, and an expensive one.

The takeaway in plain words: another day, another collective claim, and the card sector's stint before the Tribunal is not over yet.