Table of Contents

• EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

• FEATURED REPORT 📰

• TOGETHER WITH THE RUNDOWN AI* 🤝

• IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

Loads of people have reached out to me with the same problem: they spend weeks on a law firm application, only to get rejected with no feedback.

It’s exhausting, and I know myself how demoralising that feels.

So, I’m thinking about putting together a course to help aspiring commercial lawyers write applications that actually get you to the next stage.

But before I spend time building it, I want to know if people want it.

This is a limited first cohort (like a trial) — if we get 25 sign-ups, I’ll build the course alongside the first group.

The modules will be released month by month (incorporating your feedback).

If we don’t hit 25 sign-ups, I won’t build it (and anyone who signed up gets a refund).

LAST WEEK’S POLL 📊 

In last week’s newsletter, I asked you whether you thought I looked like the scientist from Rio.

Turns out (on average) you think I do!

Do I look like the scientist guy from the movie Rio?

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Yes! (336)

🟨🟨🟨🟨⬜️⬜️ Nah... (271)

Total: 607 Votes

✅ Some arguments you made in favour:

• “I'm afraid I was unable to tell the difference — you look the exact same”

• “The hair is slightly off, but I definitely see it”

❌ An argument you made against:

• “Beard wrong. Hair wrong. Glasses wrong.”

• “You don’t at all — his head is way slimmer”

Thank you to the 607 of you who voted (most ridiculous poll I’ve done on this newsletter).

- Idin

FEATURED REPORT 📰

❌ Why Mastercard’s £200 million payout wasn’t enough

What’s going on here?

In December last year, Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million to settle a lawsuit led by Walter Merricks on behalf of 46 million people. The case (the UK’s first opt-out class action claim) lasted nine years.

But Innsworth Capital, which funded the case with £45 million, challenged the deal.

They argued the payout was too low since Merricks originally expected to get £10 billion.

This week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (a specialist UK court for competition disputes) approved the settlement, though one judge called it "disappointing."

What was the dispute about?

When you pay with a credit card, the shop’s bank pays a small transaction fee to your bank (called an “interchange fee”).

In 2007, the European Commission ruled that Mastercard’s fees from 1992 to 2007 broke EU rules by setting these interchange fees too high.

Shops passed these costs onto customers by raising prices of goods. Because of this, Walter Merricks sued on behalf of the 46 million people in the UK, arguing they overpaid because of the fees.

In December, Mastercard agreed to pay £200 million to settle a lawsuit.

Why was Innsworth unhappy with the settlement?

📉 The payout was far lower than expected: Litigation funders pay the legal costs in big cases with the hope of making money from any damages or settlement. So, their return on investment depends on the total payout.

They expected £179 million, but under the settlement, they’ll receive £55 million — just £10 million more than what they invested (which they don’t think is worth their while).

🤫 The deal was made in secret: Mastercard and Merricks agreed to the settlement without consulting Innsworth Capital. Innsworth says this was unfair and an independent expert should have reviewed the deal to ensure it properly compensated consumers.

So, they asked a tribunal to review it.

What did the Tribunal decide?

The Tribunal approved the settlement.

Its full reasoning isn’t available yet, but it probably agreed with what Mastercard was arguing.

Walter Merricks, as the class representative, had the right to decide that a guaranteed £200 million now was better than risking a long legal battle that could result in nothing.

Although, the outcome wasn’t amazing for consumers either — they originally estimated to receive £70-80 each, but under the settlement, they’ll only get around £2 each (after a nine-year wait!)

Which law firms were involved?

• Freshfields advised Mastercard.

• Willkie Farr & Gallagher represented Walter Merricks.

• Akin Gump acted for Innsworth Capital.

What’s the big picture effect?

Usually, the interests of the group bringing the claim and funders backing it are aligned — both want to win and secure the biggest payout possible.

But this dispute between Merricks and Innsworth Capital shows that sometimes their goals can clash.

Merricks wanted to end the litigation and guarantee some compensation, albeit a small amount. But Innsworth Capital wanted to keep fighting, hoping for a bigger payout, even at the risk of getting nothing.

This might change how litigation funding works. In the future, funders might demand more control, such as the power to block settlements they think are too low.

There’s currently an ongoing review of how courts deal with litigation funding in the UK — a new law on funding agreements has been delayed until the review is done. The final report (expected this summer) may suggest new rules for handling disputes between funders and claimants.

TOGETHER WITH THE RUNDOWN AI* 🤝

Learn AI in 5 minutes a day

What’s the secret to staying ahead of the curve in the world of AI? Information. Luckily, you can join 1,000,000+ early adopters reading The Rundown AI — the free newsletter that makes you smarter on AI with just a 5-minute read per day.

Sign up to start learning.

* This is sponsored content

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• 🚰 Thames Water has secured a £3 billion rescue loan, avoiding a government takeover (for now). The High Court approved the plan, giving the struggling company time to restructure and attract new investors. But with £19 billion in debt and ongoing criticism over leaks and sewage spills, its future remains shaky. Its Class B creditors (who are lower-ranked) argue the 9.75% interest rate attached to the loan is too high — they’ve won the right to challenge it in the Court of Appeal. Big law firms are all over this: Linklaters advised Thames Water, Akin Gump backed Class A creditors (the lenders with priority in repayment), while Quinn Emanuel represents Class B. A&O Shearman and Freshfields are also involved advising other creditors.

• 🍏 Apple is pushing back on UK government demands for access to encrypted iCloud data. After being asked to open up its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, Apple has stopped offering it to new UK users. Existing users can keep ADP for now, but at some point, they'll have to turn it off themselves. No deadline has been set yet. This move highlights the tension between tech companies and governments over privacy and security. We covered this story here.

• 🚗 Lloyds is bracing for a big payout over car finance complaints. The bank has now set aside £1.1 billion after facing claims that it wasn’t upfront about commissions paid to car dealers. Millions of drivers could be owed compensation. Lloyds originally planned for £450 million but just added another £700 million to the pot. Other car loan providers are also under pressure as the scandal unfolds.

• 👡 Birkenstock just lost its bid to call its sandals "art." A German court ruled that the cork-soled shoes are practical designs, not creative works, so they don’t get copyright protection. Birkenstock wanted this status to block copycats but called the ruling a "missed opportunity" for intellectual property rights. In Germany, design protection lasts 25 years, while copyright lasts 70 years after the creator’s death.

AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• 🎮 Woz: Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak was so good at Tetris that Nintendo Power stopped publishing his scores

• 📅 Timelines: This tool visualises Wikipedia articles as timelines to reveal surprising links (I made this one for the term “Magic Circle”)

• 🎤 Laughter: The NHS will prescribe comedy shows in a trial to improve mental health

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

• 📹️ Free application help: If you're applying to commercial law firms, check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.