> 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.

... 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.

> 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.

I 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.

What 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

I give up. You refuse to see the distinction between the processor-merchant relationship and the merchant-consumer relationship.

No, 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.