HB 319 creates a new regulatory framework in Florida for virtual currency kiosk businesses, commonly known as cryptocurrency ATMs or Bitcoin kiosks. The bill defines key terms such as “virtual currency kiosk,” “virtual currency kiosk business,” “wallet,” and “blockchain analytics,” and expands the Office of Financial Regulation’s supervisory authority over these businesses. It also revises the definition of “control person” for money services businesses and virtual currency kiosk businesses, and directs the Financial Services Commission to adopt rules that keep pace with changes in technology, economic conditions, and industry practices.
The core of the bill is a new registration system for virtual currency kiosk businesses. Beginning March 1, 2026, these businesses would be prohibited from operating in Florida unless they register with the state, renew annually, and report changes in ownership or business information. The bill requires detailed application disclosures, including ownership structure, control persons, kiosk locations, and an attestation that the business uses blockchain analytics to prevent transfers to wallet addresses linked to known criminal activity. It also requires prominent consumer warnings at kiosks, a fraud-risk disclosure, a question asking whether the customer is sending virtual currency to someone else’s wallet, and an attestation about the irreversibility and fraud risks of the transaction. If a customer indicates the transaction is to another person’s wallet, the kiosk must stop the transaction.
HB 319 also imposes conduct standards on kiosk operators. They must transact under their registered legal name, maintain documented compliance policies, and use blockchain analytics as part of their anti-fraud and compliance controls. The bill exempts licensed money transmitters from the separate registration requirement, but still subjects them to the disclosure and conduct provisions. Violations can lead to third-degree felony charges for operating without registration or registering through fraud, and second-degree misdemeanor charges for using an unregistered name, improperly assigning a registration, or failing to use blockchain analytics. Courts are also authorized to invalidate a registrant’s registration after certain convictions.
The bill’s stated purpose is to reduce unlawful and fraudulent activity by requiring registration and consumer disclosures. The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly consumer-protection oriented, with a clear emphasis on fraud prevention, transparency, and law enforcement tools. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, and the bill ultimately died in the Commerce Committee, so there is no recorded floor debate or vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.
The main points of potential contention are the compliance burden and criminal penalties imposed on kiosk operators, especially smaller businesses or newer entrants in the virtual currency sector. The mandatory use of blockchain analytics, the detailed disclosure requirements, and the threat of felony or misdemeanor penalties for noncompliance could be viewed as significant regulatory and operational burdens. At the same time, supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s anti-fraud protections, consumer warnings, and efforts to curb scams involving cryptocurrency kiosks.
The bill would amend chapter 560, Florida Statutes, to bring virtual currency kiosk businesses under a new state registration and oversight regime administered by the Office of Financial Regulation. It would create a new Part V of chapter 560, establish application, renewal, disclosure, and conduct requirements, and authorize rulemaking by the Financial Services Commission. It would also create new criminal penalties and allow courts to invalidate registrations for certain violations, thereby adding both regulatory and enforcement mechanisms to Florida’s money services laws.
The bill appears to have been framed as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud measure, with the Legislature expressly stating an intent to reduce unlawful and fraudulent activity involving virtual currency kiosks. The statutory language reflects a strong policy preference for disclosure, accountability, and transaction monitoring. However, because no committee transcript or vote record is provided and the bill died in the Commerce Committee, there is no direct evidence of debate sentiment; the available record suggests the proposal was not advanced to final passage.
Likely areas of contention include whether the registration regime is too burdensome for virtual currency kiosk operators, whether the required blockchain analytics mandate is practical or overly prescriptive, and whether the criminal penalties are proportionate. Businesses may also object to the transaction-stopping requirement when a customer is sending funds to another person’s wallet, as well as the extensive disclosure and attestation requirements. Supporters would likely argue that these measures are necessary to combat scams, fraud, and illicit transfers, especially given the consumer risks associated with crypto kiosks.