Often one hears that the market – not legislators – should decide whether cash should be accepted by retailers. It’s important to understand that cash doesn’t just function as one of several mediums of exchange for consumers to consider using.
According to World Bank figures, globally 1.4 billion adults remain unbanked, meaning they often lack any practical digital payment option. Even in the United States, the FDIC found in 2023 there were 25 million unbanked or underbanked households (over 50 million people). For such people, cash is their only reliable access to basic necessities. That reality should be front and center whenever “let the market decide” is voiced in opposition to laws that protect the right to use cash in retail settings.
The “no legislative mandate for cash” preference assumes the invisible guiding hand of the market will accommodate everyone’s needs. But we don’t actually run society that way; not when basic participation is at stake. We routinely invest in shared infrastructure that does not “pay for itself” in narrow economic cost-benefit terms.
The value of serving as a “public good” is often taken into consideration. Rural roads aren’t built only where tolls would justify them; they’re built because mobility is a prerequisite for participation in civic and economic life.
Broadband is extended to remote communities not because every mile maximises profit, but because connectivity is now essential to education, commerce, and opportunity. In both cases, we accept that some costs are justified by fairness and social and economic inclusion.
Cash acceptance for basic necessities belongs in the same category. Yes, handling cash entails real costs: registers, safes, counting procedures, staff training, and security protocols. However, those costs are part of the basic infrastructure of commerce like keeping the lights on or complying with health and safety rules.
If you choose to operate a brick & mortar business that sells necessities, then one cost of doing business should be that you accept legal tender so everyone can purchase what they need.
This is where the “convenience” argument collapses into an equity problem. When a retailer refuses cash, unbanked and underbanked customers are not just gently nudged toward a more modern, digital option. They are excluded full stop from purchasing what they need. That is not a market choice on equal terms; it is a denial of basic participation.
It’s also important to be clear about what “digital convenience” really is, particularly where many payment apps ultimately ride on card networks and where merchant fees can be substantial.
Digital payment rails are not frictionless magic; they are a fee-generating ecosystem in which many intermediaries profit when transactions are routed through cards and apps: issuing banks, card networks, payment processors and acquiring banks, gateways, payment facilitators, POS vendors, wallet and payment-app platforms, and often add-on providers for fraud scoring, identity verification, and chargeback management.
Those costs don’t disappear; they either eat away at retailer margins or are baked into pricing and passed on to consumers through higher prices. So, the choice is not between “cash cost” and “no cost.” It is between maintaining an inclusive, universally usable option and pushing everyone into a toll system that extracts fees and data at multiple layers.
Cash also protects legitimate consumer preferences. Many elderly customers are uncomfortable navigating payment apps, two-factor authentication, and constantly changing interfaces. Others of every age object to the surveillance business model attached to digital payments resulting in permanent transaction trails, profiling, resale of behavioral information, behavioral targeting, and the downstream risks of breaches and fraud. Cash doesn’t require people to trade privacy for groceries.
Finally, cash remains the only truly permissionless transaction. It does not require an account, a device, an approval algorithm, or a functioning network. You exchange cash for a good or service and the transaction is both immediate and private.
In a pluralistic society, often competing interests must be accommodated with compromises. Some retailers prefer card-only models for perceived speed, safety, or administrative ease. But convenience for a relatively small group of merchants should not override the rights and needs of millions of consumers who lack realistic alternatives - or who reasonably prioritise privacy and autonomy.
Securing reliable data on this topic is critical because myths about declining demand for cash – or costs associated with cash vs. digital options - often circulate without evidence. In the U.S., the Payment Choice Coalition commissioned a survey from the top-rated Siena Research Institute on consumer experiences with and attitudes toward cash. The findings were illuminating and in many cases myth-busting.
For example, 85% of voters said they would support legislation requiring retailers to accept cash, and 68% of respondents reported they plan to use the same amount of - or more - cash in the next five years.
We aim to conduct a similar survey in the near future with retailers and look forward to having reliable, fresh data on retailer experiences with and knowledge and attitudes about cash as a foundation for efforts to promote the retention of cash as a payment option. Perhaps we will find that the “public good” argument is not even necessary: that in fact, the verifiable economic costs of accepting digital payments exceeds the costs of handling cash.
