Apple's No Cash For iPhone is Legal

Although, this guy doesn't think so, Apple's No Cash allowed policy is probably legal: 

Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues...There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. "

Oddly enough, I am a licensed attorney so here's my thoughts for what its worth (and that's not much I'm afraid). 

Since there is no Federal Law that mandates private merchants accept cash for transactions, private merchants are free to not accept cash. The point here is two fold, first, the Federal Government can only enforce Federal Laws that exist and second, the regulation of private merchants is generally left to the States. While State Law may require private merchants to accept cash, I don't know of (and have not heard of) any States that require private merchants to accept cash. 

There are also freedom of contract issues here. Parties are generally free to set the terms of their own contracts. A consumer purchase is just a form of contract. Apple agrees to sell you and iPhone and you agree to pay for it. Apple is now setting the term that the only way you can pay is via credit card. You are certainly free to reject that term and, of course, Apple can refuse to sell to you since you rejected its terms. 

The commerce clause argument (i.e. that the iPhone is a device regulated by the Federal Government and is often used in interstate commerce) is interesting. The problem is that who is going to foot the legal bills to challenge it - especially given current interpretations of the commerce clause (i.e. due to the conservative nature of the federal courts they have tried to limit the scope of the commerce clause. I think it is safe to assume that commerce clause challenges will generally fail - especially in this case where the challenge is not to any federal or state law but to the policy of a private merchant).

That being said, it is still interesting to consider. 

The FCC has no regulatory powers over the sale of the device (i.e. it can't influence the price apple sells it for or who apple sells it to) so the argument that the iPhone is subject to federal government regulation based on FCC requirements is peripheral at best. 

The more interesting argument is that the iPhone is often used in interstate commerce. The problem here is that the current view of the commerce clause, outlined in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 528 (2000) has set the limits of the commerce clause to (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and; (3) actions that affect interstate commerce. Now these limits apply to Federal Law. Since there is no Federal law that requires private merchants to accept cash, I suspect that courts would find no commerce clause argument can apply based on Lopez and Morrison. Additionally, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) held that the commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states. Thus, since States have the power to regulate private merchants, a commerce clause challenge to the policy of a private merchant will fail. 

Anyway, that's my 15 minute legal analysis and its probably not very good. I think the U.S. Treasury statement is much more authoritative.

**Note: Although I am an attorney, I am not your attorney. Nothing in this post or on this website should be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact your state's legal services association or bar association who can refer you to an attorney.