Reactions from the American Bankers Association, the major card brands andindustry coalitions to the settlement of a long-standing creditcard anti-trust suit have been largely favorable and havecontrasted the settlement with the Durbin amendment which cappeddebit card interchange for many large debit card issuers.

Under the terms of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard alongwith some of the biggest card issuers will pay retailers a total ofroughly $8.25 billion. The settlement also allows for retailers tosurcharge with certain restrictions consumers who choose to paywith a credit card.

Reactions from the banks and issuers drew a contrast betweenthis settlement, which had been worked out in a lengthy legalprocess, and the Durbin amendment.

“The long political conflict over interchange fees is finallyover, settled by a well-established legal process which broughttogether retailers and the card industry for a negotiatedresolution,” said a spokesman for the Electronic Payments Coalition, an association of card brandsand issuers, including credit unions that was formed to opposechanges to the card interchange system.

“The deliberate and measured approach of the settlement processis in stark contrast to that of the Durbin amendment, which waspassed in the dark of night with no review of its consequences andvirtually no public debate,” the EPC added.

“These government price controls shifted $8 billion from banksto the retailers, with no evidence that consumers are seeing lowerprices as a result. All parties have endorsed this agreement. The legal process worked and should send a signal to Congress thatit is wrong to pick winners and losers in a complex dispute betweentwo industries,” the EPC said.

ABA CEO Frank Keating echoed the EPC.

“Let's be clear – retailers, not consumers, benefit from today'sresolution,” Keating said. “This settlement even provides merchantswith the ability to impose 'checkout fees' on customers just forusing credit cards. This type of behavior is nothing new forretailers. Even after receiving an $8 billion annual windfallfrom the Durbin amendment, they refused to pass along promisedsavings to customers and sued the Fed for even more profits.

“These types of issues are best resolved by market participants.Recent history illustrates the negative consequences for consumerswhen policymakers choose winners and losers and distort themarketplace. An excellent example is the ill-conceived passage ofthe Durbin Amendment, which led to increased profits for big-boxretailers and no savings for consumers.

“Only time will tell if this history will repeat itself, asretailers continue to show little regard for consumers. While thebanking industry may not like all the results in this case, ourindustry is ready to put this matter behind us and continue playinga critical role in our nation's economic growth and jobcreation.”