Acceptance of Cash Payments by Businesses:
HB 67 would create a new section of Florida law requiring most businesses with a physical presence to accept cash as payment for in-person purchases of tangible goods and services when they already accept other forms of payment. The bill defines “cash” as U.S. coins or currency and applies to businesses operating at fixed locations, from vehicles, or from temporary premises. It also bars businesses from imposing fees or other conditions on cash acceptance.
The bill includes several exceptions. It would not apply to online, telephone, mail, or other electronic transactions; certain municipal parking facilities and parking facilities that accept electronic funds transfer; specified professional service providers such as attorneys, accountants, engineers, and consultants; transactions involving suspected counterfeit cash; use of denominations larger than $20; or single transactions over $5,000. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services would be responsible for adopting rules to implement the law, and violations would carry civil penalties that increase from $2,500 for a first offense to $10,000 for a third or subsequent offense.
HB 67 would add a new consumer-payment mandate to Florida Statutes by creating s. 559.958, F.S., and would require covered businesses to maintain cash-acceptance policies for qualifying in-person transactions. It would affect retailers, service providers, mobile businesses, and temporary vendors that currently accept non-cash payments, while carving out several categories of transactions and professions. The bill would also give the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enforcement and rulemaking authority, including the ability to assess civil penalties for noncompliance.
There is little recorded legislative debate or voting history because the bill was withdrawn prior to introduction. Based on the text alone, the measure appears aimed at protecting consumers who rely on cash and ensuring broad payment access, but no committee transcript or vote record is available to show formal support or opposition. The absence of recorded action suggests the bill did not advance far enough to generate a documented legislative consensus.
The main policy tension in HB 67 is between cash-access protections and business flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a way to prevent businesses from going cashless and to preserve access for unbanked or cash-dependent consumers, while opponents could view it as imposing operational burdens, security risks, and compliance costs on merchants. The bill also reflects compromise through its exemptions for online transactions, certain professional services, suspected counterfeit cash, large denominations, and high-value transactions, indicating concern about fraud, practicality, and business risk.