To enact sections 9.18, 1333.96, 1333.97, and 1333.98 of the Revised Code to require governmental entities and private sellers to accept cash as payment in certain circumstances.
Summary
HB554 would require certain governmental entities and private sellers in Ohio to accept cash for in-person transactions of $500 or less. The bill defines “governmental entity” broadly to include the state, political subdivisions, and private persons or businesses acting as agents of the state or a political subdivision at a physical location. For covered government transactions, cash must be accepted when offered, and the entity may not charge a higher price to a cash-paying customer than to a non-cash customer.
The bill also creates parallel requirements for retail sellers of goods or services conducted in person. Retail sellers would have to accept cash for qualifying transactions, provide at least one point-of-sale station that can take cash, and avoid charging a cash premium. Transactions by phone, mail, or internet are excluded, and sellers at airports are exempt. A violation of the retail cash-acceptance requirement would be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Ohio consumer protection law, allowing private lawsuits and enforcement by the attorney general.
Impact
If enacted, HB554 would add new sections to the Ohio Revised Code and expand consumer-payment rules for both public and private in-person transactions. It would impose a cash-acceptance mandate on government entities and retail sellers for transactions of $500 or less, prohibit cash surcharges, and create an enforcement mechanism through Ohio’s deceptive-practices statute. The bill would also give injured consumers a private right of action and authorize attorney general enforcement, potentially affecting retailers, public offices, and any covered agents operating physical payment locations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced without recorded committee testimony or votes in the materials provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose. On its face, the proposal reflects a consumer-access and payment-choice approach, suggesting support for people who rely on cash and concern about cashless business practices. Because no discussion transcript or vote history is available, there is no evidence here of formal opposition or bipartisan support.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on the burden placed on businesses and public entities to maintain cash-handling infrastructure, including point-of-sale staffing, security, accounting, and operational costs. Another likely issue is the scope of the mandate, especially the $500 threshold, the broad definition of covered governmental entities, and the requirement that cash users not be charged more than other customers. The airport exemption may also draw scrutiny as a carve-out that treats some sellers differently from other retail businesses.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.