Comments | maric23: Credit Card Minimums

maric23

Credit Card Minimums

Jul 16, 2007 19:17

Just because a local convenience store annoyed me today... and because a number of my friends tried to persuade me that I was wrong about this, I'd like to once again point out that Credit Card minimums (ie: no credit card use unless you spend $5 dollars or more, etc) are illegal in this country, as are surcharges for credit card use ( Read more... )

Comments 7

hkmercredi July 16 2007, 23:49:55 UTC

actually credit cards do usually put a limit of about $.50 for transactions. It's not much, but there IS a limit. And, as the first article you posted says, it's not illegal, it's just not in the store's contract with the credit card.

As for surcharges, it's probably to cover the fact that they have to pay the credit card companies for every credit card charge they put through. That's just part of business, though, and shouldn't be passed on to the customer unless it's included in the price for everyone, whether paying with cash, credit card or check. I'm sure some places do pass it along to the customer, but whether it's illegal or not, I don't know. You can try challenging it with the store clerk, but chances are it's a policy that's been passed down from the management to make sure they don't lose money on a transaction and they have no idea if it's something that's legal or not (and could be fired for going against company policy). It's not the clerk's fault.

maric23 July 17 2007, 02:53:39 UTC

Actually, if you read the Visa link, it is a violation of the merchant's contract. Its not a violation of state law, its a violation of the contract. If the merchant wants to accept visa at all, they're not allowed to have minimums. Same with mastercard. American express and discover, I think, both allow minimums, but only if they are enforced for all cards the merchant works with - ie: if the store takes MC or Visa, then the credit card contract with the merchant forbids minimums and surcharges.

Not illegal, just a violation of their contract with the Credit card company.

I first encountered this due to a friend who got annoyed at Jason, in collegetown, for demanding a surcharge. The surcharge wound up costing Jason's over $10,000 due to a fine clause in the contract with MC.

exmalibu July 17 2007, 04:20:39 UTC

It's more a symbol of the fact that the merchant gets screwed by VISA. Frankly, if it wasn't a monopoly between credit cards (or at best an oligopoly if you count AmEx and Discover, but that's pushing it), minimums do make sense. After all, if you charge $1 on the card, the retailer lost money. While it's true that they can't put a minimum on, you can at least empathize on this one.

maric23 July 17 2007, 10:25:49 UTC

Empathize? In theory. If they didn't already charge more than double what a supermarket did already. Being lied to by managers annoys me though.

exmalibu July 17 2007, 10:49:10 UTC

But again, it's due to the agreement. My point is that although being lied to and dealing with the store is irritating, and you're right, that the problem is endemic with the system as a whole. Compare to, say, ATMs, where banks basically rip you off for no sane reason, since there is no network agreement they are paying on.

mbarr July 17 2007, 05:33:26 UTC

I'm surprised at the Asked for ID check box. Not sure why that would be a problem-- to try to keep fraud down, it would make sense...

my reaction... y_at_here July 17 2007, 19:27:51 UTC

Oh the old country, where credit cards are credit cards that work on actual credit and the laws are in your favor, even when the convenience stores are not... I feel like you really need to stop for a moment and appreciate just how good you have it.

**Now back to our regularly scheduled Zionist program**