MATCH Placement Is Economically Devastating
In Rockaway Beverage, a federal court recognized that MATCH placement can be fatal to a business, noting that the merchant was unable to obtain cost-effective processing services and suffered sustained weekly revenue losses after being listed.
The court also acknowledged a critical procedural reality: only the reporting processor can initiate MATCH removal, and refusal to do so can leave businesses trapped indefinitely.
This recognition matters. When MATCH placement cuts off access to the financial system and informal appeals fail, legal intervention may be the only viable remedy.
Factually Wrong MATCH Listings Are Vulnerable
Courts are especially skeptical of MATCH placements that do not align with the facts.
In Rockaway Beverage, the fraud was ultimately committed by a customer—not the merchant—yet the merchant was placed on MATCH for alleged misconduct.
The court allowed claims to proceed based on this disconnect, recognizing that punishing the wrong party creates legal exposure.
MATCH listings are most vulnerable when:
- Fraud is attributable to customers, not the ISO or merchant
- Transactions were approved or encouraged before being reclassified
- Reason codes overstate or mischaracterize conduct
Negligence and Gross Negligence Claims Can Proceed
Perhaps most importantly, the Rockaway Beverage court allowed claims for both negligence and gross negligence based specifically on MATCH reporting to move forward.
The court recognized that careless investigations and reflexive MATCH referrals can breach an independent duty of care.
This holding dismantles the assumption that MATCH reporting is automatically protected conduct. Careless investigations create liability.
Contracts Do Not Provide Blanket Immunity
Processors often argue that merchant agreements authorize MATCH placement. Courts are increasingly rejecting that argument.
In Rockaway Beverage, the court refused to assume that contractual provisions governed MATCH reporting at all, recognizing the possibility of duties independent of the contract.
Similarly, in Peter Marco, the court allowed claims for negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract to survive where a bank approved a high-value transaction structure and later reversed course, terminating the merchant and placing it on MATCH.
Approval followed by punishment is fertile ground for litigation.
MATCH Placement Can Constitute Tortious Interference
Long before MATCH existed in its modern form, courts addressed its predecessor—the Combined Terminated Merchant File.
In Table Steaks v. First Premier Bank, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed a jury verdict finding that wrongful placement on the list interfered with the merchant’s relationships with customers and other banks, supporting claims for tortious interference and significant damages.
The lesson remains powerful today: MATCH-style listings can unlawfully destroy business relationships.
When It Makes Sense to Fight MATCH Placement
MATCH disputes are strongest when:
- The facts do not support the designation
- The investigation was rushed or careless
- The processor approved the conduct beforehand
- The harm is severe and ongoing
- Removal is impossible without legal pressure
Courts now recognize MATCH as more than an internal compliance tool. It is a gatekeeper to the financial system, and misuse has consequences.
Contact Us
If your ISO or business has been placed on the MATCH list—or is facing a threatened MATCH designation—early legal intervention matters.
📧 info@dilendorf.com
📞 212.457.9797
Dilendorf Law Firm represents ISOs nationwide in MATCH list removals and payment-network disputes—when access to the financial system is on the line.
