Slashdot Mirror
California Law Banning Paper Receipts Clears First Hurdle In State Legislature (latimes.com)
In January, California Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced a law barring retailers from printing paper receipts unless a customer requests one. Otherwise they'd be required to provide proof-of-purchase receipts "only in electronic form." The bill has cleared its first hurdle in the sate Legislature on Monday as it passed the Nature Resources Committee in a 6-3 vote, despite concerns from some industry groups that say the switch should be driven by the market, not a government mandate. The Los Angeles Times reports: Assembly Bill 161 by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) said his bill is an easy way to reduce paper waste in the state while addressing consumers' frustrations with excessively long receipts. Customers have taken to social media for years to complain and poke fun at the size of their receipts, particularly at CVS drugstore, posting pictures of the coupon-packed printouts measuring taller than a refrigerator. The paper that receipts are printed on is generally too thin to be made from recycled material, according to a legislative analysis of the bill. Once they are thrown away, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle, said the use of chemicals on paper receipts makes them undesirable to recyclers.
The American Forest and Paper Assn., a paper industry group that opposes the bill, estimates that the United States generates 180,000 tons of paper receipts each year. That, the group points out, is a small percentage of total paper waste. The bill would give businesses until 2022 to provide customers electronic receipts, or a paper printout available on request. Violators would receive two warnings before being levied a $25-per-day fine. The maximum annual fine would be $300. The bill exempts cash-only and smaller businesses with gross receipts under $1 million a year from the electronic receipt requirement.
The American Forest and Paper Assn., a paper industry group that opposes the bill, estimates that the United States generates 180,000 tons of paper receipts each year. That, the group points out, is a small percentage of total paper waste. The bill would give businesses until 2022 to provide customers electronic receipts, or a paper printout available on request. Violators would receive two warnings before being levied a $25-per-day fine. The maximum annual fine would be $300. The bill exempts cash-only and smaller businesses with gross receipts under $1 million a year from the electronic receipt requirement.
Okay, I don't live in CA, but ... this mean you'd have to give every retailer you buy from your email address, so no thanks. I'll always be asking for a paper receipt.
[ Contact info is not the new "plastic". ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sorry Phil Ting, you're a well meaning idiot but fucking clueless.
I'm not providing most business I deal with my email, my phone number, or any other suitable information for getting a receipt "only in electronic form".
I don't trust businesses not to be assholes, and I don't trust them to be remotely fucking competent to keep this stuff secure. Therefore any information to send me this receipt I refuse to give them.
The privacy and security implications of companies you deal with being able to provide you with an electronic receipt are staggering -- and no way in hell I'd ever do that.
They'll get told what everyone else gets told when they ask for my email address ... not fucking way.
We have enough privacy breaches happening without giving even more fucking companies that information.
This is a terrible idea which will cause new problems. And it will start to create the really broken situation like cashless stores where they will not sell you something unless you hand over your fucking email address.
No, just no.
"Where's your tattoo? Why come you don't have a tattoo?"
What makes our California overlords think that all the world's problems can be solved by banning something...
OK, so, business that bring in less than $1 million per year don't have to comply. Businesses that bring in more than $1 million per year can pay... $300 per year in fines, and then just ignore it? How is this actually going to work?
If they REALLY want to do something useful, how about banning disappearing-ink receipts?
I've had SO many receipts from California merchants where the blue ink faded completely by tax-filing time, leaving me with a mysterious piece of blank paper in my "deduct this" collection. B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This can be done via QR codes or NFC to a phone without the need for them to have any of your information.
So... I'd have to have a smartphone (or have it with me) with a QR app and/or NFC enabled -- or give out my email address -- to buy something.
Good thing this law doesn't *ban* paper receipts (yet).
I imagine you're assuming using the phone for the purchase too, and I'm not discounting your solution, just pointing out that it's a little elitist.
On the other end of this spectrum, buying with cash and getting a paper receipt is anonymous and works for rich and poor people.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My understanding is that this proposal makes the paper receipt *optional* if you give them an e-mail. First, I don't want to be on their list. Secondly, I sometimes want a paper receipt for a variety of reasons, such as eating at the grocery store and not wanting to get accused of shoplifting.
What they need to do is regulate the width and length of the receipt, and the number of items per unit length. They also need to phase out thermal paper, perhaps tax the thermal paper to fund a program for replacing it with plain paper. Why? Because thermal paper is plastics, and plastic pollution is a huge problem. Require the receipt to tell us if it's plain or thermal so we can dispose of it properly. Finally, no coupons or promotions printing out of the register unless we hit OK on the terminal.
Of course that's a lot, and lobbyists are going to push HARD against that but IMHO it's really the direction we need to go. I'm not sure how we get there.
Maybe then we can get rid of the stinkin' "club cards" and games they want you to play at the store, but first things first.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's not so much the paper that bothers me, it's the bisphenol A.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Ban paper receipts? No thanks. It's official documentation of the transaction.
Allow the status quo? No thanks. Stores are needlessly printing too much paper with information I do not need.
How about we compromise? Let's -reduce- the amount of waste, mandating that consumer receipts contain a maximum amount of information, say a list of purchased items, prices, and quantities, name & contact info of business, and date of transaction? Then only print all the extra QR codes, coupons, promos, etc. if a customer asks for it.
This can be done via QR codes
QR codes get you what all of a half k of data max? The receipt in form of QR code could not provide purchasing history by itself. It would have to be a pointer to a system that will track you when you access it.
NFC to a phone
Yea I want all of my purchases everywhere to be linked to me, aggregated and sold to the highest bidder to be used by retailers against me. Great idea.
It's a good thing. I've been scanning receipts for years and sometimes retailers don't like copies, but you also can't realistically keep paper receipts for 10+ years either. Aside from anything the thermal printed ones degrade and become illegible.
Who scans receipts? You have issues.
Someone was moaning about it in the thread on LED lightbulbs with 10 year warranties yesterday. Digital copies are much easier to keep and organize.
Wake me up when there is a global universal standard for digital receipts in the first place and then talk to me about ease of keeping organized.
just pointing out that it's a little elitist.
There is nothing "elitist" about cell phones.
95% of American adults have a cell phone.
87% of adults in Bangladesh have a cell phone, twice as many as have a toilet in their home.
For the few people that don't have a phone or email, they can still ask for a paper receipt.
Until retailers, because no-paper is pushed so hard, stop keeping the facility to print receipts. I would like it better if this was a double-edged-sword kind of law. One that says:
1. Retailers can only print a receipt if the buyer requests.
2. Retailers MUST maintain the capability and print a receipt if a buyer requests.
You can't tell who is selling your email address or is being hacked that way. Use a unique email for every site and store that you do business with. (store1@mydomain.com, store2@mydomain.com, etc) Have a rule that says that anything that isn't your primary email address (the one you give out to friends and family) gets moved to a secondary inbox. Then you go through your secondary inbox for your receipts, messages of orders being sent, etc and archive them as required. Just make sure to keep an eye on your spam folder.
With this method there's no need to set up aliases every month and then delete them afterwards. You just set up your primary email address as the one to receive any messages that aren't addressed to known users or aliases. I have this set up on Zoho.com and it was easy to do. I'm just a user of their free plan and have no other affiliation to them.
but you also can't realistically keep paper receipts for 10+ years either
That's sort of a false issue. Most people who make use of paper receipts to return something do it within 30 days or so. Brushing the issue off by tossing out 'Ten years' sounds like a rationalization.
Uh.. Ever heard of tax records? The IRS can demand receipts for shit you claimed for up to 7 years in the past. So take your "30 days to return shit" and stuff it.