Trade press demands freedom of choice at the till — but does not supply the cost calculation

What happened

On 16 September 2026 IT-Finanzmagazin published a commentary by its deputy editor-in-chief Tobias Weidemann in favour of the obligation to offer a digital payment option planned by Federal Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil. The text argues consistently from the customer's point of view: anyone free to choose their dish in a restaurant should also be free to choose their means of payment — “freedom of choice that only begins after the third cappuccino is none at all.” The commentary also positions itself explicitly against pure card acceptance without cash. Addressing the retail trade, it says that anyone citing costs as an argument should at least open up the whole bill. The article names no figures, studies or legal sources of its own. The status of the project itself is unchanged: the key points from the Federal Ministry of Finance have been known via dpa since 11 September 2026, they are in interdepartmental consultation, and to this day there is no press release from the ministry itself.

Who it affects

Bricks-and-mortar retailers, hospitality businesses and service providers with small average baskets who have so far settled in cash. And everyone who will need arguments in the debate over the coming months that go beyond gut feeling.

Assessment

The commentary is right on the substance and has a gap in the evidence. What is correct: a customer standing in front of a “terminal out of order” sign experiences no freedom of choice, but an imposition. For 2025 the Bundesbank measured that for the first time more purchases were paid cashless than in cash — 55 per cent against 45 per cent, six percentage points less cash than in 2023, surveyed by Forsa among 6,070 respondents. And the market has long been moving voluntarily: at the half-year mark of 2026, EURO Kartensysteme counted 1.397 million active girocard terminals, up 11.1 per cent on the previous year, with 4.21 billion transactions. That is not a picture of refusal, it is a picture of retrofitting.

Except: anyone accusing the trade of not opening up the whole bill should open it up themselves. Then you see where it really pinches. Not on the percentage of turnover, but on the fixed components — terminal rental, per-transaction flat rate, network operating fee — which work out differently on an average basket of 36.12 euros than on one of 120 euros. At the baker with the three-euro roll, it is not ideology that decides but the cent amount per payment. That is precisely where a law that wants to be taken seriously has to start: at terms that can carry small amounts, and not at lecturing the people who stand at the till every day.

What to do now

1. Split your own statements for the last three months into fixed and turnover-dependent components and calculate the cost per transaction — not per unit of turnover.
2. Set that figure against your own average basket. Only then can you say objectively whether card acceptance is expensive in your business or merely looks expensive.
3. Renegotiate before a statutory obligation rather than after: anyone competing for a voluntary connection gets better terms than someone who is legally obliged.