I'm actually surprised that retailers haven't started surcharging people paying in cash by now in order to drive all of individuals' transaction data into the panopticon.
Many do, effectively. See: loyalty cards with special pricing or rewards attached. Membership cards for Costco or Sam's, though there are other reasons for those, too.
Stacking that stuff and CC rewards can save you several percent of your retail spending a year. Paying cash is like paying sales tax twice.
[EDIT] to be clear, you effectively pay more to not be tracked in general, not just for avoiding a CC. Loyalty cards get you regardless of payment method. Also, lots of stores try really hard to get you to take "their" credit card (god, Target won't shut up about it) with unusually good rewards or discounts at their store. You can bet they get access to those data, including when you use it other places, even if Visa or MasterCard services it (and also gets the data)
They won't in the medium term because of how much they hate the credit card company's cut. 3% is a lot on an already low-margin transaction at Walmart.
There is no way Walmart pays 3% when a small business with minimal documentation can pay less via Square, PayPal, etc...
And as mentioned elsewhere, cash has a cost as well (theft, miscounting change, counting in and out cash drawers during shift changes, arranging daily deposits, trips to the bank, etc). As someone who worked retail 10+ years ago, I can assure you all these things happened, and probably added 2-3% to costs vs electronic payments.
3% is probably inaccurate, it may be 2% with a cap of 21 cents or something like it, I don't know the average percentage. I do know it is upsetting enough to Walmart to sue for 5.9 billion in 2014[1] and join a class action lawsuit for 3 billion in 2003[2], to go in on a electronic mobile payments processor with rivals target and stores rite aid and cvs[3]. I got all this perspective following the news that Walmart would not back Apple Pay because it was holding out for it's own system [4] with lower fees called "CurrentC" (that I think died? I haven't heard about it since).
That last article quotes it at up to 3% but most say 2%, so I am assuming there is a percentage and a fixed cost, and possibly a cap. In any case Walmart had a long history of being very unhappy with the relationship.
We don't know Walmart's feelings, they may like the arrangement. Business go cash free for all kinds of reasons. Customers that use credit spend more money than cash customers. Walmart probably isn't one of those places that benefit as much as a pub but they may have a small credit spending boost that covers the fees.
Walmart is a really smart and data driven company and I'm sure they've weighed their options about what is effective business practices for them.
A walmart branded card gives them money back though, I see it more as a way to slow the bleeding on transaction fees they are going to have to pay no matter what. See my cousin comment on the whole "CurrentC"[0] debacle for where I am coming from on this. Walmart has a long history of sueing the credit card companies over their rates and had tried to make a competitor.
I went to a store in my city that just opened a few weeks ago. They advertise as being paperless and cash free, and only accept debit/credit. I think it's the first time I went to a store that refused cash.
My experience with short regional jumps operated by a subsidiary or third-party under a larger airline brand has been that they do cash-only while the medium- and long-haul flights actually operated by the large airline have been card-only.
Only to settle existing debt. If they say "No cash accepted" they could do their business that way (and have no customers). As an extension, gas stations are allowed to refuse large bills if they put out a sign (and the all do).
Why would retailers care? They are not making money from the payment information; the credit card company is. Further, they're not making money from the fact that people use the credit card; it's again the credit card company. I don't think that adding a surcharge for cash purchases (or, more realistically, a "discount" to credit card purchases) would make much sense economically? (Except in situations where handling cash is especially inconvenient, e.g., buses, vending machines, etc.)
They do it in a different way - through loyalty cards. In a store I frequent (which is cheap, and thus services lots of poor people), you can save a bit of money by just letting the clerk scan your loyalty card.
Interestingly, the discounts are usually not on the "exclusive" items, but on basic necessities - like vegetables.
Also, the shop in question didn't even have debit/credit card readers until very recently. I suppose stores may be reluctant to pushing people into card payments simply because processing fees are too large if you're running on small margin.
