3 ms·
> requiring minimum purchases is a violation of the merchant-processor agreement That is exactly the type of agreement that the Durbin amendment prohibits. I d
by TheCoelacanth 9y ago
> requiring minimum purchases is a violation of the merchant-processor agreement
That is exactly the type of agreement that the Durbin amendment prohibits. I don't see any mention of state or local laws prior to now, so that seems like a complete non sequitur to me.
- DrScump 9y ago... because it appears that you haven't read the statute (it's quoted in my other comment thread). For credit cards (as opposed to debit), it affects processors only.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago> it affects processors only Yes, exactly like I said. It prevents processors from requiring merchants not to have minimum charges. In other words, it prevents processors from making agreements with merchants where "requiring minimum purchases is a violation of the merchant-processor agreement". It doesn't stop someone else from stopping the merchant from having a minimum charge, but it does stop the type of merchant-processor agreement that you described.
- DrScump 9y agoI don't see how you differ from what I wrote. The start of the thread was the claim that the Durbin amendment made it illegal for merchants to set CC minimums for consumer purchases. That's the false interpretation.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoWhat I originally wrote is easily verifiable and clearly does not say that: > the law requires that processors allow merchants to have a minimum purchase requirement of up to $10
- DrScump 9y agoI give up. You refuse to see the distinction between the processor-merchant relationship and the merchant-consumer relationship.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoNo, I'm really don't. My original comment is about the processor-merchant relationship. You can tell because it uses the word "processor" and "merchant" and is about what the processor allows the merchant to do.