In recent years, a growing number of everyday activities have become dependent on smartphones, ranging from reading restaurant menus and paying checks to entering venues, completing work sign-ins, accessing healthcare, and using public transit. This shift toward a smartphone-centric society has raised concerns about accessibility and equity, prompting a push to ensure that non-digital options remain available.
The widespread adoption of smartphones has accelerated this trend. In the U.S., smartphone ownership surged from 35 percent of adults in 2011 to 81 percent in 2019, and has since climbed to approximately 90 percent, according to Pew Research Center data. This increase has led institutions to assume widespread smartphone ownership, a phenomenon sociologists refer to as "isomorphism," where organizations adopt practices not necessarily because they are the best, but because others are doing so.
While some digital integrations offer genuine convenience, such as easier public transit payments, critics point to less benign motivations. Digital systems can reduce labor and operating costs for companies and governments by replacing human staff with apps and QR codes. This also shifts work onto consumers and generates valuable personal data for companies. Furthermore, digital interfaces can enable price discrimination, where different users see different prices for the same product or service.
The growing reliance on smartphones has created significant barriers for many, including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, the unhoused, and those who cannot afford data plans. The argument for preserving non-smartphone options centers on accessibility, affordability, and individual agency, asserting that essential services should not exclusively require a smartphone.
In response to these concerns, efforts are underway to push back against this trend. Some cities are implementing laws requiring businesses to accept cash, and New York state has passed a ban on "cashless establishments" to ensure continued access to dining and shopping without digital requirements. The Americans with Disabilities Act is also being examined as a potential legal avenue to require businesses to serve customers who do not use apps, with some suggesting that smartphone ownership be added to state anti-discrimination statutes.
Internationally, Europe is also addressing this issue. In 2023, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly urged member states to maintain non-digital access to public services. In early 2025, a coalition of advocacy groups delivered a letter to the European Parliament requesting a guarantee of offline access to essential services, noting that a significant portion of Europeans still lack basic digital skills.
In the United States, there are signs that even large technology companies are responding to concerns about their platforms' impact. Meta recently agreed to a settlement of at least $12.1 billion to resolve claims that it designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive for children. The company announced plans to redesign its platforms for younger users, incorporating features like daily time limits and restrictions on like counts and beauty filters.
However, relying solely on reforms aimed at child safety may not fully address adult needs, as such reforms do not always translate to broader protections. For example, while the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was enacted in 1998 to protect children's data, a federal safeguard for adults' online data is still lacking.
Beyond regulation, some advocate for pressuring individual businesses to offer non-phone options. Afreka Ebanks, a spokesperson for Dumb.co, a company selling smartphone alternatives, expressed optimism that businesses seeking to cultivate a sense of community might be more receptive to customer requests for non-digital services. She pointed to examples like Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C., which continues to offer physical key options for unlocking bikes, demonstrating a commitment to serving customers who do not use smartphones.
Ultimately, the movement advocates for a society where reducing or eliminating smartphone use is a viable choice, ensuring that opting out of the digital-only model is not functionally impossible.