On March 24, 2025, United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. issued a damning 14-page order dismissing MiCamp Solutions LLC‘s antitrust lawsuit against Visa Inc., exposing “elementary mistakes” and “inappropriately flippant” statements. The complaint, attempting to represent all U.S. Independent Sales Organizations with Visa marketing agreements since 2004 in a multi-billion dollar class action, described Visa executives meeting “likely in some sort of dungeon or lair” and referenced “Visa overlords.” Judge Gilliam called this “well short of the Court’s expectations” and warned about Federal Rule 11, which can result in monetary sanctions.
The legal collapse comes as the Better Business Bureau shows ten merchant complaints in 36 months. Customers report double billing, unauthorized charges, and feeling “scammed by a stranger.” Multiple merchants reviews and report surprise fees including $99 annual PCI compliance charges, $20 monthly minimums, $10 statement fees, and early termination penalties of $250 to $400 undisclosed at signing.
The Failed Class Action and Fatal Legal Errors
MiCamp Solutions, operating from 4021 N 75th Street Suite 101 in Scottsdale, Arizona, filed its lawsuit December 8, 2023, claiming Visa’s conduct caused “higher prices for consumers, suppressing competition, and harming various stakeholders in the credit card transaction ecosystem.” The court found the complaint “muddled” and that MiCamp had no legal standing to sue. Judge Gilliam wrote that MiCamp describes itself as a “middleman” and concedes that challenged fees are paid by banks to merchants. Under Illinois Brick v. Illinois, only direct purchasers can bring antitrust claims.
The contradictions proved fatal. MiCamp’s original complaint called merchants “direct purchasers,” but after Visa identified the Illinois Brick problem, MiCamp’s amended complaint suddenly called them “indirect purchasers.” In the most bizarre argument, MiCamp claimed Visa was a government entity subject to First Amendment restrictions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing Visa operates “its own quasi-administrative court system.” Judge Gilliam dismissed these as “only conclusory assertions.” All constitutional claims were dismissed without leave to amend, meaning MiCamp cannot refile them.
The court cataloged additional errors: MiCamp’s temporary restraining order motion alleged Sherman Act Section 1 violations while the complaint asserted Section 2 claims. MiCamp’s “state law claims” failed to identify which state’s laws applied. The complaint listed 49 state antitrust statutes without factual allegations supporting any violations. MiCamp Solutions alleged Visa “intentionally leaked certain PII or negligently handled certain PII” causing identity fraud but provided “no factual support” for these serious allegations. The court noted it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims without viable federal claims.
MiCamp Solutions’ Reviews Mirror Court Failures
MiCamp Solutions maintains an A+ BBB rating, while reviews and complaints reveal systemic problems. On March 2023 merchant stated: “I have been getting charged double the rates in the contract. Despite multiple phone calls and texts to my sales agent (who no longer returns my texts), I have yet to be refunded. My sales agent acknowledges I was double billed but nothing happens. Customer service keeps telling me my account rates are being reviewed but nothing happens.”
An October 2024 review details unauthorized access: “They gave my account information to another company and allowed them to take money out of my account two months in a row. But how many people do they get by with that charge because they don’t pursue it? What about the money they took out October 3, 2024? I never got that credited back!”
Equipment leasing generates repeated complaints. One merchant states: “We were scammed into signing a lease with MiCamp Solutions for equipment which is still in original boxes because we cannot use them. We asked if we can return it and stop billing and they say yes then will not provide an address. This has gone on over a year. They are taking money monthly and we are not receiving any services.” Equipment is leased through First Data Global Leasing, with lease payments often exceeding equipment value.
One review warns: “DO NOT sign onto Micamp Solutions. This company is ONLY interested in holding monies owed. They are OBSESSED with chargebacks, even when the customer has no history! Customer service acts as though they care — but don’t be fooled.” Another described “chains of emails where I wasn’t being responded to. The most unprofessional company, almost seemed like I was being scammed from a stranger.” One stated: “THIS PLACE IS A SCAM, EVERY GOOD REVIEW HERE IS FAKE,” describing being “scammed out of $30,000” for a credit card machine.
MiCamp’s standard response claims accounts “are not affiliated with MiCamp Solutions” and belong to entities like Vertical Ledger or Superior Merchant, despite merchants insisting they only have contact with these companies through MiCamp.
What It Means for Merchants
MiCamp Solutions claims to process over $2 billion annually for more than 15,000 merchants, though some sources cite up to $11 billion. The firm operates as an ISO of Fiserv with partnerships with TSYS and Authorize.Net. President Micah Kinsler founded the business in 2007 with Gary Jeppesen as CEO.
MiCamp Solutions acquired American Bank Payments in 2021 and Express Payment Solutions in 2022, with REPAY becoming the clearing processor in 2023. Court records reveal another lawsuit filed in Clark County, Nevada in 2020, though details remain sealed.
Judge Gilliam granted Visa’s dismissal motion, denied MiCamp’s temporary restraining order, and denied MiCamp’s motion to defer consideration. MiCamp received until April 14, 2025, to file an amended complaint. That deadline has passed with no evidence of any filing. The Illinois Brick doctrine represents a fundamental bar to standing, not merely a pleading deficiency. As Judge Gilliam wrote, “it is clear that MiCamp will be unable” to establish Visa as a state actor. The case ended in complete failure.
Online forums including Reddit feature posts accusing the company of scams. Recurring themes include difficulty terminating services, undisclosed fees of $250 to $400, unresponsive service, and sales agents who disappear. Multiple merchants report promises of rate reviews that never materialize and acknowledged refunds never processed.
Conclusion
MiCamp Solutions failures in court reflect the same issues seen in its customer dealings(merchant reviews). The company’s confused legal filings, unsupported claims, and procedural errors mirror complaints from merchants about broken promises, poor communication, and lack of accountability.
Judge Gilliam’s remark that MiCamp’s representations “fall well short of the Court’s expectations” sums up both its legal and business conduct. For merchants, MiCamp’s failed Visa antitrust case and mounting BBB complaints highlight a consistent pattern: a processor struggling with reliability, transparency, and credibility.
Leave a Reply