In a bold move against Big Plastic, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Visa for allegedly hijacking the debit card market, claiming their fees are making everything from lattes to laptops more expensive.

The lawsuit, which reveals that Visa controls over 60% of the U.S. debit transaction market while raking in about $7 billion annually in fees, alleges the company is not just squeezing merchants but also making consumers' wallets weep. Attorney General Merrick Garland pointed out that Visa's monopoly could be the reason why your morning coffee costs more than it should—because apparently, justice isn't the only thing that's served cold; so are debit card fees.

According to the complaint filed by the Department of Justice, Visa has gone beyond merely enjoying its market share. The company employs barriers that allegedly prevent competitors from introducing lower-priced alternatives. In a world where even your grocery receipts come in coupons, one would think there might be some competition in the debit realm. However, Visa seems determined to keep its monopoly like a toddler keeps a favorite toy—clutching it tightly and giving everyone else the side-eye if they dare to look at it.

Not surprisingly, these exclusivity agreements that Visa imposes appear to have a weighty impact. The Justice Department claims these contracts penalize any businesses wishing to process debit transactions through other systems. In simpler terms, if you wanted to check out of a store and happen to have a debit card from another provider, Visa's agreements essentially say 'great, thanks for your money, but we're afraid you can't use it here.' It's a lovely way to ensure you keep spending with them while their competitors are left standing in the corner with their hands in their pockets.

In the aftermath of the legal filing, Garland spoke to the gravity of the situation, stating the implications of Visa's practices ripple through the economy. Prices for goods and services hike up as merchants and banks, with no choice but to pass on the exorbitant processing fees, transfer that burden onto you. So while Visa is out there raking in billions, consumers must grapple with a new equation: higher prices minus choice equals less joy.

This isn't the first time Visa’s tactics have landed them in hot water. It follows earlier attempts by Visa to acquire Plaid—a financial technology company— that the Justice Department previously blocked. Apparently, when it comes to expanding one's empire, even Visa's well-honed ambitions have limits. However, instead of contemplating their life choices, they appear to be sticking to the well-tread path of heavyweight market control, preferring legal battles over actual competition.

With more than 60% of the debit transactions in the U.S. funneled through their network, the question arises—where does that leave smaller competitors? Are they being driven out of business altogether, or are they simply hiding under a rock waiting for a less expensive way to transact? One hopes at least some enterprising innovators will rise from the ashes of this lawsuit to offer an alternative to the unwieldy grip Visa has on the debit market.

To illustrate the dramatic impact of this lawsuit, we can look at how the ubiquitous swipe of a debit card has evolved into a test of economic endurance. Merchants, who are required to absorb these processing fees, could be found rummaging through their accounts, looking for spare change like a squirrel starved for a nibble. Some might raise prices in response, while others could compromise on quality or service. One can only wonder how many businesses have offered uncomplimentary 'complimentary' coffee as an effort to keep their latte prices in check.

For many Americans, this lawsuit may feel less like a courtroom drama and more like a necessary intervention at a family gathering where everyone knows somebody has taken too much pumpkin pie. As America watches this legal skirmish unfold over debit cards, we can only hope it fosters an environment ripe with competition and cost-effective solutions. Until then, consumers will perhaps have to brace themselves for debates over how they choose to pay—card or cash? An age-old question that feels less ancient when one suddenly realizes it has repercussions far beyond mere currency.