Oregon 2022 Regular Session

Oregon Senate Bill SB1565

Introduced
2/1/22  
Refer
2/1/22  
Report Pass
2/14/22  
Engrossed
2/16/22  
Refer
2/17/22  
Report Pass
2/24/22  
Enrolled
3/1/22  
Passed
3/24/22  
Chaptered
4/1/22  

Caption

Relating to discrimination based on the use of certain types of currency as payment; and prescribing an effective date.

Impact

If enacted, SB 1565 would significantly amend Oregon's existing laws related to public accommodation and consumer protection. It aims to ensure that individuals who choose to pay with cash cannot be denied services based on the currency they provide. This aligns with broader efforts to protect the rights of consumers and guarantee their access to services regardless of payment methods. The bill introduces a mechanism for individuals to report violations to the Bureau of Labor and Industries, promoting accountability among businesses.

Summary

Senate Bill 1565 aims to prohibit discrimination based on the form of currency used for payment in public accommodations. The bill specifies that it is unlawful for any place providing goods or services to refuse United States coins and currency as acceptable forms of payment. Exceptions are made for specific situations, such as refusals for large amounts of coins or currency in certain denominations. This bill reflects a growing concern over cashless payment systems and the potential exclusion of individuals who rely on cash for transactions.

Sentiment

Sentiment regarding SB 1565 is generally positive among advocates for consumer rights and those who support cash accessibility. Proponents argue that the bill helps safeguard the rights of cash users and prevents discrimination against vulnerable populations who may not have access to digital payment systems. Conversely, some opponents raise concerns about the implications for businesses that may struggle to manage cash transactions, pointing out challenges related to security and efficiency.

Contention

Key points of contention surrounding SB 1565 include the balance between consumer protection and the operational burdens it may impose on businesses, particularly smaller establishments. Critics argue that mandating cash acceptance could complicate business operations and potentially deter innovative payment solutions. Furthermore, discussions have raised the need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms and how businesses can comply without facing undue hardship.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB618

Transactions and use taxes: City of Scotts Valley: City of Emeryville.

CA AB3259

Transactions and use taxes: City of Campbell: City of Pinole: County of Solano.

CA AB2598

Crimes: money laundering.

CA SB319

Criminal justice statistics: reporting.

CA SB703

Transactions and use taxes: Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara and City of Santa Fe Springs.

CA AB2443

Transactions and use taxes: Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville.

CA SB152

Transactions and use taxes: County of Sonoma.

CA SB335

Transactions and use taxes: County of Santa Clara.