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.

Comments

Paper or contact info?

[fahrbot-bot]

... 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."

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". ]

Re: Paper or contact info?

[Cmdln Daco]

Nobody is using 1500 year old redwood for pulpwood.

In fact, promoting the growth of pulpwood would be a good way of sequestering a bunch of carbon.

Re: Paper or contact info?

[jpaine619]

Every bit of paper that is made in the western world today is made from a tree that was planted to be paper, specifically. Nobody is cutting down old growth forests for paper, asshat. That wood is far too valuable and generally ends up as furniture or (insert expensive item here).

Re:No man, like

[RickyShade]

"Where's your tattoo? Why come you don't have a tattoo?"

Just ignore it?

[aaron44126]

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?

Re:Just ignore it?

[jmcharry]

Why not just tax the receipt paper?

If they REALLY want to do something useful

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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

Re:No man, like

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Re:Banning solves all problems

[bobstreo]

What makes our California overlords think that all the world's problems can be solved by banning something...

When the only tool you know how to use is a ban-hammer, all your problems look like nails...

Endocrine Disrupters

[BrendaEM]

It's not so much the paper that bothers me, it's the bisphenol A.

Neither side advocates for the consumer

[Pollux]

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.

Re:Banning solves all problems

[LynnwoodRooster]

Just remember, according to California and Prop 65 - toast and prune juice will give you cancer! They are only looking out for you. Now ignore the pile of poo outside your door in SF, mind the needles in the grass, and eat your tofu and drink your boba (with no plastic utensils, straws, or paper receipts mind you - it's for the Earth, after all...)