To Amend The Uniform Commercial Code; To Define "central Bank Digital Currency" Under The Uniform Commercial Code; To Modify The Uniform Commercial Code Definitions; And To Modify The Arkansas Banking Code Of 1997.
Summary
SB47 amends Arkansas’s Uniform Commercial Code to add a new definition of “central bank digital currency” (CBDC) and to exclude CBDC from the UCC definitions of both “money” and “deposit account.” Under the bill, CBDC is defined broadly to include digital currency, digital medium of exchange, or digital monetary unit of account issued by the Federal Reserve System, a federal agency, a foreign government, a foreign central bank, or a foreign reserve system when made directly available to consumers or processed/validated directly by those entities.
The bill also revises the UCC definition of “money” so that it covers government-authorized or adopted mediums of exchange, but expressly does not include CBDC. It further amends the secured transactions definition of “deposit account” to clarify that deposit accounts do not include CBDC, alongside existing exclusions such as investment property and accounts evidenced by an instrument. The practical effect is to place CBDC outside these core UCC categories, which may affect how digital currency is treated in commercial transactions, collateral rules, and related banking or secured lending matters.
Impact
SB47 would change Arkansas Code provisions in the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically the general definitions section and the secured transactions article. By excluding central bank digital currency from the definitions of “money” and “deposit account,” the bill would alter how certain digital government-issued currencies are classified under state commercial law, potentially affecting perfection, priority, and collateral treatment in secured transactions. The bill also appears intended to align or coordinate with the Arkansas Banking Code of 1997, though the text provided focuses on UCC amendments.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears technical and precautionary, reflecting a legislative effort to define and limit the treatment of CBDC within Arkansas commercial law. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to assess beyond the bill’s formal, definitional approach.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the treatment of central bank digital currency itself: supporters may view the bill as providing legal clarity and preserving existing commercial-law categories, while critics may see the exclusion of CBDC from “money” and “deposit account” as preemptively constraining future digital currency use or adoption. Another possible issue is the breadth of the CBDC definition, which includes foreign and federal issuers and both direct consumer access and direct validation/processing, potentially raising questions about scope and future application. No specific stakeholder positions are available in the provided materials.