An act to amend Sections 1501 and 1520 of, and to add Sections 1516.5 and 1516.6 to, the Code of Civil Procedure, and to add Section 3802 to the Financial Code, relating to digital assets.
AB 1052 would update California law to address digital financial assets, including cryptocurrency and other digital-only assets, in both the Unclaimed Property Law and the Financial Code. The bill would expressly allow individuals and businesses in California to accept digital financial assets as payment for goods and services, and it would make clear that using a digital financial asset in a private transaction is valid legal consideration. It also states that public entities are not required to accept digital financial assets as payment.
The bill would create a specific escheat framework for digital financial asset accounts. Under the measure, property in a digital financial asset account would escheat to the state after three years of inactivity or after undelivered written or electronic communications, depending on the circumstances. It defines what counts as owner activity, requires holders with control of the necessary private keys to transfer escheated assets in native form to a custodian designated by the Controller, and directs the Controller to select one or more qualified custodians by January 1, 2027. The custodian must be licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and meet criteria related to cybersecurity, private-key management, reporting, owner reunification, and anti-money-laundering compliance.
The bill would also revise existing unclaimed property notice rules to better fit digital accounts and would add digital financial asset accounts to the list of property types covered by the general three-year escheat rules. In practical terms, this would expand state administrative authority over dormant crypto and similar accounts, while also clarifying how holders, custodians, and the Controller should handle assets that cannot immediately be transferred because of private-key limitations. The measure affects account holders, digital asset businesses, custodians, and owners of digital wallets or exchange accounts with California connections.
Overall sentiment in the legislative history appears broadly favorable, at least in committee and floor votes, with unanimous or near-unanimous support in the recorded votes. The bill advanced through multiple committees and the Assembly without recorded opposition in the vote summaries provided. At the same time, the bill was later held under submission and placed on suspense file, suggesting that fiscal, implementation, or policy concerns remained unresolved even though the measure had support.
The main points of contention appear to center on implementation details rather than the general concept of regulating digital assets. The most notable issues are how holders will transfer assets when they control only part of a private key, how the state will safely custody escheated digital assets, and whether the Controller can identify a qualified custodian with the necessary licensing and technical capacity. There may also be broader policy tension between encouraging private use of digital assets and expanding state escheat authority over dormant accounts, but the available vote history does not show organized opposition in committee.
AB 1052 would amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the Financial Code to create a California legal framework for accepting digital financial assets as payment and for treating dormant digital asset accounts as unclaimed property subject to escheat. It would add new definitions, new escheat rules for digital financial asset accounts, new duties for holders and custodians, and a new authority for the Controller to designate licensed custodians for state-held digital assets. The bill would also integrate digital asset accounts into existing unclaimed property notice and transfer procedures, affecting businesses, exchanges, wallet providers, custodians, and owners of digital assets with California ties.
The recorded legislative action suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill’s policy goals, with unanimous votes in the committees and Assembly actions listed. The measure appears to have been treated as a serious modernization of unclaimed property and payment law for digital assets rather than a controversial expansion of regulation. However, its later placement on suspense file and being held under submission indicate that support did not fully resolve concerns about cost, administration, or technical feasibility.
The most significant contention points are operational and technical. Legislators and staff would likely need to resolve how escheated digital assets are transferred when a holder lacks full control of the private key, how the Controller will choose and oversee a qualified custodian, and whether the licensing and anti-money-laundering requirements are sufficient for secure state custody. There is also an underlying policy question about balancing consumer and business freedom to use digital assets in private transactions with the state’s interest in claiming dormant assets after three years of inactivity.