Comment by btown

A bit pedantic, but especially relevant in a conversation about government-permitted monopoly power: while requiring minimum spend might be in breach of the payment networks' contracts, and may give rise to _civil_ liability (and punitive measures towards the merchants), we shouldn't use language like "illegal" that implies that government would have any interest in, or capacity for, proactive enforcement.

When we use language that evokes the mechanisms of state and implies they'd be used to enforce a monopoly power, we imbue that power with the gravity of those mechanisms, and further entrench it as a "way of life." We should be especially careful of that when said monopoly/duopoly essentially creates and enables a private taxation of the primary source of credit to many in the world!