Payment Choice Act of 2025
The Payment Choice Act of 2025 would require most brick-and-mortar retail businesses that accept in-person payments to accept U.S. cash as payment, up to $500 per transaction. It also bars retailers from charging cash-paying customers a higher price than non-cash customers. The bill applies to businesses selling goods or services at retail to the public, including businesses that also take phone, mail, or internet orders if they accept in-person payments at a physical location.
The bill creates limited exceptions. A retailer would not violate the requirement if it temporarily cannot accept cash because of a system failure or lack of change, or if it provides a fee-free cash-to-prepaid-card device on site that meets specified consumer-protection conditions. It also allows an inactivity fee on such cards only under narrow conditions. For the first five years after enactment, retailers would not be required to accept $50 bills or larger denominations, and after that the Treasury Secretary would issue a rule on acceptable denominations, with $1, $5, $10, and $20 bills required.
The bill would add a new federal provision to title 31 of the U.S. Code, creating a nationwide cash-acceptance rule for retail businesses and a private right of action for customers. Enforcement would allow aggrieved customers to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, minimum liquidated damages of $250 when actual damages are lower, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees in some cases. The bill also directs annual federal reporting on the geographic distribution of ATMs owned by federally insured depository institutions and credit unions, and it preserves stronger state, local, tribal, or territorial protections.
Overall sentiment appears supportive and consumer-oriented, though the available record contains no committee debate or votes. The bill was introduced by Senators Cramer and Fetterman and referred to the Senate Banking Committee, suggesting an initial bipartisan framing around payment choice and access to cash. The text emphasizes consumer rights and cash accessibility rather than restricting electronic payments.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on retailer compliance burdens, cash-handling costs, security concerns, and operational issues such as making change or handling large bills. Another possible issue is the private enforcement mechanism, which could expose businesses to litigation and penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize inclusion for unbanked or underbanked consumers, while opponents may argue the mandate is inflexible for modern retail operations and payment systems.
The bill would amend chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code, by adding a new section requiring retail businesses that accept in-person payments at physical locations to accept cash for transactions up to $500 and to avoid cash-price discrimination. It would also establish federal enforcement remedies, including customer lawsuits, damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees, while allowing stronger state, local, tribal, and territorial laws to remain in effect. In addition, it would require annual reporting by the FDIC and NCUA on ATM distribution, affecting federally insured banks and credit unions.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so sentiment must be inferred from the bill text and sponsorship. The bill is framed positively around consumer choice, legal tender, and access to cash, and its introduction by Senators Cramer and Fetterman suggests a bipartisan consumer-protection posture. No opposition is documented in the available record, but the policy is likely to draw mixed reactions from retailers and payments-industry stakeholders.
The main likely contention is whether federal law should compel retail businesses to accept cash, especially given costs associated with cash handling, theft risk, accounting, and operational complexity. Retailers may also object to the prohibition on charging cash users more and to the private right of action with damages and penalties. Consumer advocates and supporters are likely to favor the measure because it protects cash users, including unbanked and underbanked individuals, and prevents businesses from becoming cashless by default.