> 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.