5 ms·

I'm pretty sure card only is illegal in NYC for precisely this reason. I come across them occasionally and I think the pandemic made it a bit more common place

by codyb 4y ago

I'm pretty sure card only is illegal in NYC for precisely this reason. I come across them occasionally and I think the pandemic made it a bit more common place but it's technically against the law here to not accept cash. https://abcnews.go.com/US/cashless-stores-restaurants-banned-york-city-law/story?id=68478650 https://abcnews.go.com/US/cashless-stores-restaurants-banned...

Phrodo_00 4y ago
In my country, the state-owned bank (normal bank that happens to be owned by the state, not the central bank) came out with an automatic, free checking account so that everyone can use cards. It's not perfect because it has some less than ideal fees, but it helps getting over this problem.
actionablefiber 4y ago
I've seen posts on Reddit[1] that say that cashless establishments in NYC will just give you your food for free if you try to pay with cash. Never tried it though. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/vcebns/im_an_ex_employee_of_van_leeuwen_ice_cream_i_got/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/vcebns/im_an_ex_employ...
- mnd999 4y ago
  I dunno about US law but in the UK the law of legal tender requires you to accept payment of a debt in (exact) cash and if you've already eaten the food then a debt would certainly exist. This would not apply in a shop of course as they could just refuse to sell you the goods.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    It's the same in the United States. You have to accept cash to settle a debt but if you haven't received anything, the concept of "legal tender" doesn't really exist yet. That's why laws that require accepting cash are generally done at a municipality level.
    - wiederholen 4y ago
      There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.
      - selectodude 4y ago
        I know that. However you must accept cash to settle a debt. It's literally printed on every bill.
        saghm 4y ago
        To be fair, writing on currency doesn't necessarily have to be legally binding. The bills also say "in god we trust", and yet I'm free to not trust in god and there are no legal consequences.
        nradov 4y ago
        You're missing the point. Under US federal law, if I owe you a $100 debt and I hand you $100 in cash paper money then I have settled the debt. You cannot then sue me, demanding to be paid via Visa or PayPal or whatever. But this applies to debts only, not purchases.
        saghm 4y ago
        I think you're missing my point! I'm not saying that the law doesn't actually require this; I'm just saying that there's nothing in general saying that something printed on every bill has to be true. In this case, it happens to be, but saying that it's printed on the bill isn't what proves it.
        nradov 4y ago
        Nonsense. What's printed on the bill absolutely proves it. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
  - fy20 4y ago
    Requiring card only payments if you pay after you eating sounds like a recipe for confusing customers. The only places I've seen doing card only are coffee shops and quick serve restaurants where you pay before you get your food.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  Posts in that same thread also suggest that they won't.
apeace 4y ago
Wow, I had no idea! I work with a lot of unbanked individuals in low-income areas of NYC, so I am familiar with some of their struggles. I can't say I agree with this law, though. There was a store near me robbed at gunpoint not too long ago, and I felt so bad for the worker who had to go through that, not to mention how scary it is to feel like armed robbers are casing my neighborhood. So I feel glad for people like the coffee lady I mentioned, who have chosen to avoid that risk entirely. I understand the good intentions behind the law, but I think there are other ways to help unbanked individuals that would still allow business owners to chose how they accept payment.

by codyb 4y ago

Phrodo_00 4y ago

In my country, the state-owned bank (normal bank that happens to be owned by the state, not the central bank) came out with an automatic, free checking account so that everyone can use cards. It's not perfect because it has some less than ideal fees, but it helps getting over this problem.

actionablefiber 4y ago

I've seen posts on Reddit[1] that say that cashless establishments in NYC will just give you your food for free if you try to pay with cash. Never tried it though. [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/vcebns/im_an_ex_employee_of_van_leeuwen_ice_cream_i_got/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/vcebns/im_an_ex_employ...

mnd999 4y ago
I dunno about US law but in the UK the law of legal tender requires you to accept payment of a debt in (exact) cash and if you've already eaten the food then a debt would certainly exist. This would not apply in a shop of course as they could just refuse to sell you the goods.
- selectodude 4y ago
  It's the same in the United States. You have to accept cash to settle a debt but if you haven't received anything, the concept of "legal tender" doesn't really exist yet. That's why laws that require accepting cash are generally done at a municipality level.
  - wiederholen 4y ago
    There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      I know that. However you must accept cash to settle a debt. It's literally printed on every bill.
      - saghm 4y ago
        To be fair, writing on currency doesn't necessarily have to be legally binding. The bills also say "in god we trust", and yet I'm free to not trust in god and there are no legal consequences.
        nradov 4y ago
        You're missing the point. Under US federal law, if I owe you a $100 debt and I hand you $100 in cash paper money then I have settled the debt. You cannot then sue me, demanding to be paid via Visa or PayPal or whatever. But this applies to debts only, not purchases.
        saghm 4y ago
        I think you're missing my point! I'm not saying that the law doesn't actually require this; I'm just saying that there's nothing in general saying that something printed on every bill has to be true. In this case, it happens to be, but saying that it's printed on the bill isn't what proves it.
        nradov 4y ago
        Nonsense. What's printed on the bill absolutely proves it. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
- fy20 4y ago
  Requiring card only payments if you pay after you eating sounds like a recipe for confusing customers. The only places I've seen doing card only are coffee shops and quick serve restaurants where you pay before you get your food.
dfxm12 4y ago
Posts in that same thread also suggest that they won't.

apeace 4y ago

Wow, I had no idea! I work with a lot of unbanked individuals in low-income areas of NYC, so I am familiar with some of their struggles. I can't say I agree with this law, though. There was a store near me robbed at gunpoint not too long ago, and I felt so bad for the worker who had to go through that, not to mention how scary it is to feel like armed robbers are casing my neighborhood. So I feel glad for people like the coffee lady I mentioned, who have chosen to avoid that risk entirely. I understand the good intentions behind the law, but I think there are other ways to help unbanked individuals that would still allow business owners to chose how they accept payment.