> I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law

No policy or law shall be enacted that directly or indirectly requires a use of a computing device where any other alternative at all is possible. Where offering other alternatives presents a cost, that cost (and only that cost, with no markup) may be passed on to the consumer.

▲

tjohns 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option...

I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee's salary/benefits.

It's a bit hyperbolic, but supporting non-standard workflows is organizationally expensive with many non-quantifable costs.

	▲	dmitrygr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow. And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.