Item 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

granted final approval of the settlement in December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of appeals’ ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement. As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court divided the merchants’ claims into two separate classes - monetary damages claims (the “Damages Class”) and claims seeking changes to business practices (the “Rules Relief Class”). The court appointed separate counsel for each class.

In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. The time period during which Damages Class members were permitted to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended in July 2019 with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The district court granted final approval of the settlement in December 2019. The district court’s settlement approval order has been appealed. Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations with a number of the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements and/or agreements in principle to settle a number of these claims. The Damages Class settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief Class are ongoing.

As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, Mastercard had accrued a liability of $914 million as a reserve for both the Damages Class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, Mastercard had $584 million and $553 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund related to the Damages Class litigation and classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet. During the first quarter of 2019, Mastercard increased its qualified cash settlement fund by $108 million in accordance with a January 2019 preliminary approval of the settlement. The Damages Class settlement agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of the cash settlement fund, based upon the percentage of interchange volume represented by the opt out merchants. During the fourth quarter of 2019, $84 million of the qualified cash settlement fund was reclassified from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents in accordance with the December 2019 final approval of the settlement.

The reserve as of December 31, 2019 for both the Damages Class litigation and the filed opt-out merchants represents Mastercard’s best estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the Damages Class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to occur.

Canada. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard’s favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale acceptance, including the “honor all cards” and “no surcharge” rules. The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act. Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in the other suits. In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and modify its “no surcharge” rule, has received court approval in each Canadian province. Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval orders. Certain appellate courts have rejected the objectors’ appeals, while outstanding appeals remain in a few provinces. In 2017, Mastercard recorded a provision for litigation of $15 million related to this matter.

Europe. In July 2015, the European Commission (“EC”) issued a Statement of Objections related to Mastercard’s interregional interchange fees and central acquiring rule within the European Economic Area (the “EEA”). The Statement of Objections, which followed an investigation opened in 2013, included preliminary conclusions concerning the alleged anticompetitive effects of these practices. In December 2018, Mastercard announced the anticipated resolution of the EC’s investigation. With respect to interregional interchange fees, Mastercard made a settlement proposal whereby it would make changes to its interregional interchange fees. The EC issued a decision accepting the settlement in April 2019, with changes to interregional interchange fees going into effect in the fourth quarter of 2019. In addition, with respect to Mastercard’s historic central acquiring rule, the EC issued a negative decision in January 2019. The EC’s negative decision covers a period of time of less than two years before the rule’s modification. The rule was modified in late 2015 to comply with the requirements of the EEA Interchange Fee Regulation. The decision does not require any modification of Mastercard’s current business practices but included a fine of €571 million, which was paid in April 2019. Mastercard incurred a charge of $654 million in 2018 in relation to this matter.

Since May 2012, a number of United Kingdom (“U.K.”) retailers filed claims or threatened litigation against Mastercard seeking damages for alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to Mastercard’s cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic

MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K 101

PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

interchange fees (the “U.K. Merchant claimants”). In addition, Mastercard, has faced similar filed or threatened litigation by merchants with respect to interchange rates in other countries in Europe (the “Pan-European Merchant claimants”). In aggregate, the alleged damages claims from the U.K. and Pan-European Merchant claimants were in the amount of approximately £3 billion (approximately $4 billion as of December 31, 2019). Mastercard has resolved over £2 billion (approximately $3 billion as of December 31, 2019) of these damages claims through settlement or judgment. Since June 2015, Mastercard has recorded litigation provisions for settlements, judgments and legal fees relating to these claims, including charges of $237 million in 2018. As detailed below, Mastercard continues to litigate with the remaining U.K. and Pan-European Merchant claimants and it has submitted statements of defense disputing liability and damages claims.

In January 2017, Mastercard received a liability judgment in its favor on all significant matters in a separate action brought by ten of the U.K. Merchant claimants. Three of the U.K. Merchant claimants appealed the judgment, and these appeals were combined with Mastercard’s appeal of a 2016 judgment in favor of one U.K. merchant. In July 2018, the U.K. appellate court ruled against both Mastercard and Visa on two of the three legal issues being considered, concluding that U.K. interchange rates restricted competition and that they were not objectively necessary for the payment networks. The appellate court sent the cases back to trial for reconsideration on the remaining issue concerning the “lawful” level of interchange. The U.K. Supreme Court granted the parties permission to appeal the appellate court’s rulings and oral argument on the appeals was heard in January 2020. Mastercard expects the litigation process to be delayed pending the decision of the U.K. Supreme Court on the appeals.

In September 2016, a proposed collective action was filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of U.K. consumers seeking damages for intra-EEA and domestic U.K. interchange fees that were allegedly passed on to consumers by merchants between 1992 and 2008. The complaint, which seeks to leverage the European Commission’s 2007 decision on intra-EEA interchange fees, claims damages in an amount that exceeds £14 billion (approximately $17 billion as of December 31, 2019). In July 2017, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ application for the case to proceed as a collective action. In April 2019, the U.K. appellate court granted the plaintiffs’ appeal of the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to the trial court for a re-hearing on the plaintiffs’ collective action application. Mastercard has been granted permission to appeal the appellate court ruling to the U.K. Supreme Court and oral argument on that appeal is scheduled to occur in May 2020.

ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated Teller Machine (“ATM”) operators and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the “ATM Operators Complaint”). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed over Mastercard’s and Visa’s respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the “ATM Consumer Complaints”). The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants’ ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard’s motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1 billion in damages against all of the defendants. Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the plaintiffs’ liability and damages claims and to oppose class certification. Mastercard expects briefing on class certification to be completed in the second quarter of 2020.

102 MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K

PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

U.S. Liability Shift Litigation

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Discover (the “Network Defendants”), EMVCo and a number of issuing banks (the “Bank Defendants”) engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the “EMV Liability Shift”), in violation of the Sherman Act and California law. Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs and an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation described above. The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification, following the district court’s denial of their initial motion.

Telephone Consumer Protection Class Action

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action pending in Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas Bank (“FAB”). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has disputed). In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard’s motion to stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services. In December 2019, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services that are received via e-mail. As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in January 2020.

Note 22**.** Settlement and Other Risk Management

Mastercard’s rules guarantee the settlement of many of the transactions between its customers (“settlement risk”). Settlement exposure is the settlement risk to customers under Mastercard’s rules due to the difference in timing between the payment transaction date and subsequent settlement. While the term and amount of the guarantee are unlimited, the duration of settlement exposure is short term and typically limited to a few days.

Gross settlement exposure is estimated using the average daily payment volume during the three months ended December 31, 2019 multiplied by the estimated number of days of exposure. The Company has global risk management policies and procedures, which include risk standards, to provide a framework for managing the Company’s settlement risk and exposure. In the event of a failed customer, Mastercard may pursue one or more remedies available under the Company’s rules to recover potential losses. Historically, the Company has experienced a low level of losses from customer failures.

As part of its policies, Mastercard requires certain customers that are not in compliance with the Company’s risk standards to post collateral, such as cash, letters of credit, or guarantees. This requirement is based on a review of the individual risk circumstances for each customer. Mastercard monitors its credit risk portfolio on a regular basis and the adequacy of collateral on hand. Additionally, from time to time, the Company reviews its risk management methodology and standards. As such, the amounts of estimated settlement exposure are revised as necessary.

The Company’s estimated settlement exposure was as follows at December 31:

		2019				2018
		(in millions)
Gross settlement exposure		$	55,800			$	49,666
Collateral held for settlement exposure		(4,772		)		(4,711		)
Net uncollateralized settlement exposure		$	51,028			$	44,955

Mastercard also provides guarantees to customers and certain other counterparties indemnifying them from losses stemming from failures of third parties to perform duties. This includes guarantees of Mastercard-branded travelers cheques issued, but not yet cashed of $367 million and $377 million at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, of which $290 million and $297 million at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, is mitigated by collateral arrangements. In addition, the Company enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business under which the Company agrees to indemnify third parties against damages, losses and expenses incurred in connection with legal and other proceedings arising from relationships or transactions with the Company. Certain indemnifications do not provide a stated maximum exposure. As the extent of the Company’s obligations under these agreements depends entirely upon the occurrence of future events, the Company’s potential future liability under these agreements is not determinable. Historically, payments made by the Company under these types of contractual arrangements have not been material.

MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K 103

PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 23**.** Derivative and Hedging Instruments

The Company monitors and manages its foreign currency and interest rate exposures as part of its overall risk management program which focuses on the unpredictability of financial markets and seeks to reduce the potentially adverse effects that the volatility of these markets may have on its operating results. A primary objective of the Company’s risk management strategies is to reduce the financial impact that may arise from volatility in foreign currency exchange rates principally through the use of both foreign exchange derivative contracts (Derivatives) and foreign currency denominated debt (Net Investment Hedge). In addition, the Company may enter into interest rate derivative contracts to manage the effects of interest rate movements on the Company’s aggregate liability portfolio, including potential future debt issuances (Cash Flow Hedges).

Foreign Exchange Risk

Derivatives

The Company enters into foreign exchange derivative contracts to manage transactional currency exposure associated with anticipated receipts and disbursements which are valued based on currencies other than the functional currency of the entity. The Company may also enter into foreign exchange derivative contracts to offset possible changes in value due to foreign exchange fluctuations of assets and liabilities. The objective of these activities is to reduce the Company’s exposure to gains and losses resulting from fluctuations of foreign currencies against its functional currencies.

The Company’s foreign exchange derivative contracts are summarized below:

		December 31, 2019								December 31, 2018
		Notional				Estimated Fair Value				Notional				Estimated Fair Value
		(in millions)
Commitments to purchase foreign currency		$	185			$	3			$	34			$	(1	)
Commitments to sell foreign currency		1,506				(25		)		1,066				26
Options to sell foreign currency		21				2				25				4
Balance sheet location
Prepaid expenses and other current assets 1						$	12							$	35
Other current liabilities 1						(32		)						(6		)

1	The derivative contracts are subject to enforceable master netting arrangements, which contain various netting and setoff provisions.

The amount of gain (loss) recognized on the consolidated statement of operations for the contracts to purchase and sell foreign currency is summarized below:

		Year Ended December 31,
		2019				2018				2017
		(in millions)
Foreign exchange derivative contracts
General and administrative		$	(39	)		$	53			$	(75	)

The fair value of the foreign exchange derivative contracts generally reflects the estimated amounts that the Company would receive (or pay), on a pre-tax basis, to terminate the contracts. The terms of the foreign exchange derivative contracts are generally less than 18 months. The Company had no deferred gains or losses related to foreign exchange contracts in accumulated other comprehensive income as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, as these contracts were not designated as hedging instruments for accounting.

The Company’s derivative financial instruments are subject to both market and counterparty credit risk. Market risk is the potential for economic losses to be incurred on market risk sensitive instruments arising from adverse changes in market factors such as foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates and other related variables. Counterparty credit risk is the risk of loss due to failure of the counterparty to perform its obligations in accordance with contractual terms. To mitigate counterparty credit risk, the Company enters into derivative contracts with a diversified group of selected financial institutions based upon their credit ratings and other factors. Generally, the Company does not obtain collateral related to derivatives because of the high credit ratings of the counterparties.

104 MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K

PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Net Investment Hedge

The Company uses foreign currency denominated debt to hedge a portion of its net investment in foreign operations against adverse movements in exchange rates, with changes in the value of the debt recorded within currency translation adjustment in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). In 2015, the Company designated its €1.65 billion euro-denominated debt as a net investment hedge for a portion of its net investment in European operations. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had a net foreign currency transaction pre-tax loss of $84 million in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) associated with hedging activity.

Interest Rate Risk

Cash Flow Hedges

The Company is exposed to interest rate volatility on future debt issuances. To manage this risk, in the fourth quarter of 2019, the Company entered into treasury rate locks to lock the benchmark rate on a portion of the interest payments related to forecasted debt issuances. These locks are linked to future interest payments on anticipated U.S. dollar debt issuances forecasted to occur during 2020 and are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The maximum length of time over which the Company has hedged its exposure to the variability in future cash flows is 30 years. As of December 31, 2019, the total notional amount of interest rate contracts outstanding was $1 billion. The Company did not have any derivative instruments relating to this program outstanding as of December 31, 2018.

As of December 31, 2019, in connection with these cash flow hedges, the Company recorded pre-tax net unrealized gains of $14 million in accumulated other comprehensive income. As of December 31, 2019, the fair value of these contracts was $14 million and is included in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet.

Note 24**.** Segment Reporting

Mastercard has concluded it has one reportable operating segment, “Payment Solutions.” Mastercard’s President and Chief Executive Officer has been identified as the chief operating decision-maker. All of the Company’s activities are interrelated, and each activity is dependent upon and supportive of the other. Accordingly, all significant operating decisions are based upon analysis of Mastercard at the consolidated level.

Revenue by geographic market is based on the location of the Company’s customer that issued the card, as well as the location of the merchant acquirer where the card is being used. Revenue generated in the U.S. was approximately 32% of total revenue in 2019, 33% in 2018 and 35% in 2017. No individual country, other than the U.S., generated more than 10% of total revenue in those periods. Mastercard did not have any individual customer that generated greater than 10% of net revenue in 2019, 2018 or 2017.

The following table reflects the geographical location of the Company’s property, equipment and right-of-use assets, net, as of December 31:

		2019				2018				2017
		(in millions)
United States		$	1,147			$	613			$	572
Other countries		681				308				257
Total		$	1,828			$	921			$	829

MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K 105

PART II

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Note 25**.** Summary of Quarterly Data (Unaudited)

		2019 Quarter Ended
		March 31				June 30				September 30				December 31				2019 Total
		(in millions, except per share data)
Net revenue		$	3,889			$	4,113			$	4,467			$	4,414			$	16,883
Operating income		2,213				2,397				2,655				2,399				9,664
Net income		1,862				2,048				2,108				2,100				8,118
Basic earnings per share		$	1.81			$	2.01			$	2.08			$	2.08			$	7.98
Basic weighted-average shares outstanding		1,026				1,020				1,013				1,008				1,017
Diluted earnings per share		$	1.80			$	2.00			$	2.07			$	2.07			$	7.94
Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding		1,032				1,025				1,019				1,013				1,022
		2018 Quarter Ended
		March 31				June 30				September 30				December 31				2018 Total
		(in millions, except per share data)
Net revenue		$	3,580			$	3,665			$	3,898			$	3,807			$	14,950
Operating income		1,825				1,936				2,287				1,234				7,282
Net income		1,492				1,569				1,899				899				5,859
Basic earnings per share		$	1.42			$	1.50			$	1.83			$	0.87			$	5.63
Basic weighted-average shares outstanding		1,051				1,043				1,037				1,032				1,041
Diluted earnings per share		$	1.41			$	1.50			$	1.82			$	0.87			$	5.60
Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding		1,057				1,049				1,043				1,038				1,047

Note: Tables may not sum due to rounding.

106 MASTERCARD 2019 FORM 10-K

PART II

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE