cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11153742
In a Dutch bar I ordered a few samples (which have no cost and were somewhat generous in size) and drank part way through them all. Then I ordered a full sized beer. I continued working on the samples.
Bartender asked if I wanted to pay now or start a tab. I asked if they accept cash. It feels silly to ask and I almost didn’t ask because the answer is always “yes”, of course. So I was shocked when the bartender said no.
WTF? Surely there would be enough customers who are wise enough to foresee possible consequences of having electronic records of alcohol consumption. It can only work against you, e.g. when the bank, data brokers, and insurance companies see an opportunity to collude and optimise your your insurance premiums using that info.
The GDPR would theoretically protect Europeans from that but bars are open to tourists – non-Europeans with non-European bank accounts. I mentioned that to the bartender, who said “what’s the GDPR?” Wow. I was shocked again.
I made it clear that electronic payment doesn’t work for me (most especially when alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana are involved). I said: can someone pay with their own account and take my cash? Bartender asked if I have exact change. No, I didn’t but I got close enough that the bartender was able to use the tip jar to give me change.
I later noticed that the menu book (1st page after the cover) says “cash not accepted”. But I initially missed that because I ordered off the posted board. And there’s no guarantee anyway that a customer would see the first page. I often flip straight to the last page to look for drinks. When I left the bar I had a look at the entrance and door. There was no cash-hostile signage like some other shops have.
Questions for Dutch folks:
If the bar had been less reasonable, less flexible, how else might this have played out? I did not sip from the full beer before the conversation, so I suppose the bar could have just treated it like an erroneous beer pour and pour it down the drain.
Suppose I had not thought to ask if cash was accepted. What if I drank the beer and then my cash were refused with both sides standing their ground? There is a practical problem here not just a legal one. The hundreds worth of banknotes in my pocket would be worthless. So would it be no different than the situation of a deadbeat debtor who simply does not pay? Would I be cited and fined? Would I have the option to leave the bar with an invoice to pay by bank transfer, perhaps using the post office? Would I have to leave collateral such as an ID card while running the errand? And what if it’s Sunday or after hours of the post office?
What about the case where someone enters with bank card(s) that are in a broken state, unknown to the card holder? I’ve been in grocery store lines where a customer tries all their cards. Often the last card they try works but I’ve seen a case where someone had to leave all their groceries. I’ve been in situations where a card in good standing is refused for being foreign (despite the rules of the card network). Are these situations legally any different than someone who simply has no cards to pay with?
There is a very wise “EU Recommendation” that cash be accepted on payments towards debts specifically (not necessarily points of sale). I believe if you have a bar/restaurant tab that would be a /debt/, not a /point of sale/. But what are EU recommendations good for? Is it just to guide lawmakers, or is there some courtroom value when national policy deviates from the recommendation?
FWIW, this thread is where I learned that cash acceptance is optional in Netherlands. The original post was censored but that cross-post mirrors it.
Not Dutch, but next time you go to a new place, check reviews or information regarding if they accept cash.
If this situation was different and you were adamant about paying in cash, you could argue that you don’t have enough money in your debit, but did have enough in cash. They might pity you, but you are still attempting to pay your debt, and if they don’t take it, you can argue that they refused the payment.
Not Dutch, but next time you go to a new place, check reviews or information regarding if they accept cash.
That’s exactly what I’m doing here. This is the purpose of this thread. That was not my first visit to Netherlands and it won’t be my last.
If this situation was different and you were adamant about paying in cash, you could argue that you don’t have enough money in your debit, but did have enough in cash. They might pity you, but you are still attempting to pay your debt, and if they don’t take it, you can argue that they refused the payment.
My questions are not really of the “how do I weasel out of this” variety. I can hack my way out of lots of situations. But those hacks are best constructed with an understanding the law and the how the system works, which is what I hope to gain. It would be nice to know if Dutch shops have a transparency obligation to post signage conveying their cash hostility. The suggestion is a reasonable hack for finding one’s self broad-sided by this situation. Though I imagine they would want proof: “show us your card does not work”. In which case I should ideally carry a card that I know is broken. But the best planning ahead is to train myself on avoiding such businesses to begin with.
Same in the UK by the way. Business are not obliged to accept cash, and plenty of them don’t. So if you only have one way of paying, either cash or card, better check first if the accept it.
The UK is this way on debts, where you consume a product or service before payment? Do you know the answer to any of my series of questions w.r.t the UK because that would be interesting as well.
Legal tender is only relevant for debts paid in courts etc. who have to accept the cash. It doesn’t apply in commercial businesses. Not sure how a bar/restaurant would deal with it if you only have cash and they don’t want to accept it, but for petrol stations it’s standard practice to get you to fill out a form promising to pay within a week if you can’t pay, for example because your bank card does not work.
The GDPR would theoretically protect Europeans from that but bars are open to tourists – non-Europeans with non-European bank accounts
GDPR applies to people based in the EU, or located inside the EU, so tourists would be protected as well. I am also absolutely not surprised that a bartender would not know about GDPR, since it doesn’t really apply to their job. (They might also know it by its Dutch acronym, AVG.)
Theoretically that’s true but I’ve already seen it fail. Using a non-EU card to buy airfare from an EU airline website still results in all flight details (flight number, time, origin, destination, name of traveler) being needlessly¹ shared with the credit card network and with the bank. So non-EU people can only fantasize about getting GDPR protections on EU transactions.
And now that I’m thinking about this, the GDPR protection is limited. That is, the bank must know that a bar is on one side of the transaction (legal basis would be a “contract” if not “legitimate interest”). The GDPR limits the bank from sharing that info and also limits the bank from using it internally for purposes unrelated to the performance of the contract (e.g. the bank cannot send you beer ads as a result).
So consider the non-EU customer angle. The non-EU bank would also know that a cardholder spent X amount in bar Y. Do you believe that non-EU bank would recognize that bar Y is in Europe and thus not sell that info to data miners for whatever the data is worth? If yes, what would the enforcement recourse be? Could the non-EU person report their non-EU bank to a data protection authority under Art.77 in the member state where the bar was located? I’m a bit fuzzy on this cross-border aspect of the GDPR. IIRC there are DPAs in some non-EU countries that the EU considers acceptable (which ironically includes the US), but I’m quite skeptical of their powers or willingness to use their power to handle an Art.77 complaint. I suppose there must be some mechanism in place but I’d be quite far from trusting it.
¹ Sharing airfare data happens because some credit cards include travel insurance and the bank needs those details to trigger the insurance coverage. But not all cards have that insurance yet it seems the sharing is automatic regardless.
(They might also know it by its Dutch acronym, AVG.)
Good point. It was an English conversation but indeed I should have said AVG. In any case, you just lowered my degree of surprise that they didn’t know the GDPR.
Theoretically that’s true but I’ve already seen it fail.
Well, the good news is that that’s true for EU people too.
Wait, did I say good news?
And yes, GDPR is limited to companies that do business inside the EU. That is also the leverage through which enforcement can happen - losing access to the EU market.
Well, the
goodnews is that that’s true for EU people too. (emphasis mine)Indeed; confirmed. I have several quite simple purely EU cases that have been just sitting idle for years.
And yes, GDPR is limited to companies that do business inside the EU. That is also the leverage through which enforcement can happen - losing access to the EU market.
Well, I suppose if a non-EU consumer opts to use a bank card of a bank that also has an EU presence, that might give a slight advantage over their purely domestic cards. OTOH, banks seem quite careful to separate themselves across national borders, even within Europe. Ing in Netherlands is likely a different company than Ing in Belgium. So if two banks are only sharing the same branding, I wonder to what extent HSBC in the UK (or wherever they are headquartered now) would be the same bank as HSBC in NL in terms of legal action exposure.
deleted by creator
Most card only shops/places have a sticker on there door. But as a non Dutch person you probably don’t know how they look.
If you are somewhere where card or cash is not always accepted it’s pretty normal to ask beforehand. Past summer we where on holiday in the Balkan where paying with card wasn’t always possible. We just ask beforehand then we can check if we had enough cash or we choice to go somewhere else.
If you in a situation (especially in a bar) there is probably someone how is willing to pay for you with card and you pay them with cash. You maybe don’t get all the change but you problem is fixed. Or how it was fixed now.
But if you are abroad and don’t know it just ask beforehand. Doesn’t matter if you want to pay with card or cash.
Most card only shops/places have a sticker on there door. But as a non Dutch person you probably don’t know how they look.
I noticed one shop with a no cash sticker that looked like it could be a standardised placard. The bar I was in did not have any indicator of any kind on the door or exterior. So I’m asking what the law is on this. Is there a legal obligation for cashless shops to disclose it? If yes, what rights does the business lose if they fail that?
Suppose I had not thought to ask if cash was accepted. What if I drank the beer and then my cash were refused with both sides standing their ground?
The legal default is that a store accepts all forms of cash payment, but they are allowed to opt out of any or all denominations with posted signage either on the window or at the register. IANAL, but I doubt a mention in the menu qualifies as such.
On the other hand, if they have clear signage, then the argument that “card doesn’t work for me” isn’t an ability to pay if you have a working card, but a refusal to pay.
What about the case where someone enters with bank card(s) that are in a broken state, unknown to the card holder?
What if someone enters a place that takes cash, thinking they can pay with dollars (which happens at a non-zero rate in Amsterdam), or rubies and gold? The answer is the same in both cases: that’s the customers problem.
The legal question is really “was it clearly posted?” If yes, then it’s always the customer’s problem for going into an agreement they can’t fulfil. If not, it’s the seller’s problem for refusing a legal means of payment. That’s really the crux of it, and the requirements for “clearly posted” are very broad: a card-sized sticker at the register is enough.
Your comment is mostly sensible and I appreciate your insight on the obligation to post cashless signage, but this seems a bit off:
What about the case where someone enters with bank card(s) that are in a broken state, unknown to the card holder?
What if someone enters a place that takes cash, thinking they can pay with dollars (which happens at a non-zero rate in Amsterdam), or rubies and gold? The answer is the same in both cases: that’s the customers problem.
EU law has established the definition of legal tender in the eurozone to include euro banknotes and coins. Each eurozone member state keeps its own laws as far as defining the role and purpose of legal tender (and that creates a bit of a mess, but it is what it is). I think a member state can include more forms of money as legal tender, but euro banknotes and coins are mandated by the commission to be part of the legal tender definition. So there can be little confusion about other currencies having legal tender status. There is also an EU Recommendation that legal tender be accepted on payment toward debts, and I believe running a tab and paying later must be a debt (as opposed to a point of sale). In any case, gold and rubies would not have equal standing to euro banknotes in Amsterdam.
I cannot say I put much stock into any guesswork that a broken card would be treated as if the customer brought nothing to pay with. Banks can (and often do) spontaneously disable cards at any moment without communicating to the card holder. The card may even be functional while you eat, and the bank could disable it 5 seconds before you tap the payment terminal. It could be entirely outside the card holder’s control – by an shitty anti-fraud AI mechanism (which I have been at the receiving end of lately). It would be absurdly and embarrassingly harsh for a society to treat a victim of AI like a deadbeat freeloading non-payer. I can’t say you’re wrong because I don’t know Dutch law and procedure, but it sounds like conjecture.
Sometimes the card and card holder’s bank is not even at issue. Some machines rejected my perfectly valid card in Netherlands. The logo for the payment network matched and my account was funded. Machine rejected it saying “contact your bank”. The bank said there’s nothing wrong with the account… no blocks… card should work. The bank did a deeper check and said the transaction attempts were never even transmitted to the bank – that the card processor itself decided to reject the card. So the machine that rejected my card lied, and erroneously implied the problem was on my side.
So when a card fails to pay out, that failure can potentially be entirely on the merchant side of the transaction. E.g. some merchants refuse foreign cards, which violates the terms of the Visa merchant agreement but it’s not enforced so merchants are happy to break it. And the messaging cannot be trusted. So surely as someone is in a bar or restaurant with a failing payment, there is no way to know with certainty on the spot where the fault is, amid false error messages. It requires investigation which may take some time. On top of that, some banks charge high hourly fees for investigations. This is why I’m interested in what Dutch law and procedure is in this situation.
On the other hand, if they have clear signage, then the argument that “card doesn’t work for me” isn’t an ability to pay if you have a working card, but a refusal to pay.
This can also be a dicey scenario. Some foreign cards have no fees for global use, while cards not designed for foreign use can have absurdly high fees if used outside the country. I would plan on using only cards that are reasonable and perhaps carry the very costly cards for emergencies.
It’s also seems a bit haphazard that businesses only have to specify “no cash”, but not necessarily the forms of payment they take. So a customer could pull out a Diner’s Club card and find it’s not even compatible. This is another problem that would normally be easily solved with a cash option.
