House Bill 750 would amend Idaho’s Uniform Commercial Code definitions to expressly exclude “programmable money” from the definition of money and deposit accounts, and it would add a new chapter to Title 28 called the Consumer Payment Rights and Transparency Act. The new chapter defines programmable money broadly to include digital assets or tokens that can be controlled by code, algorithms, or artificial intelligence, and it defines a “social credit score system” in terms of financial access restrictions based on lawful conduct or viewpoints.
The bill would prohibit an issuer of programmable money from requiring its use without offering a non-programmable alternative at no charge, and from denying transactions based on specified factors such as sex, race, ethnicity, political opinion, religion, medical history including vaccination status, browsing or purchase history, location, profession, social credit scoring, or other lawful activity. It also requires issuers, upon request after a denial, to provide a detailed written explanation, contact information, and the applicable terms of service. The bill creates civil remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and possible revocation of authorization to do business in Idaho for intentional, knowing, or repeated violations.
The bill also creates criminal penalties: a violating issuer would commit a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $10,000 fine per violation, up to one year in jail, or both, with each unjustified denial or failed transaction treated as a separate offense. The measure expressly states that issuers may still decline transactions involving criminal offenses or payment for criminal acts, and it does not prohibit the purchase or sale of cryptocurrency or other assets. It contains a severability clause and an emergency clause making it effective July 1, 2026.
Its impact on state law would be significant for financial services, digital payments, and any entity issuing or controlling programmable money in Idaho. It would add new consumer protections and enforcement mechanisms while also changing UCC definitions to carve programmable money out of existing categories of money and deposit accounts. The bill could affect banks, fintech companies, digital asset platforms, payment processors, and other businesses that use automated transaction controls or code-based restrictions.
The voting history suggests the bill was controversial. It passed the House on third reading by a substantial margin, but it was defeated in the Senate on third reading, indicating stronger opposition in the upper chamber. Based on the bill’s text, the main points of contention likely center on whether the state should regulate emerging digital payment technologies this aggressively, the breadth of the prohibited criteria, the inclusion of political and social factors, and the bill’s criminal and business-licensing penalties.
The bill would amend Idaho Code sections 28-1-201 and 28-9-102 to exclude programmable money from existing UCC definitions of money and deposit accounts, and it would create a new Title 28, Chapter 54 governing programmable money. It would impose new duties and liabilities on issuers of programmable money, including disclosure obligations, civil liability, attorney-fee shifting, potential business authorization revocation, and misdemeanor penalties for violations.
The House vote indicates meaningful support for the bill, but the Senate vote shows that support did not carry across the full legislature. Overall, the measure appears to have been viewed favorably by supporters concerned about consumer choice, financial privacy, and limits on code-based restrictions, while opponents in the Senate likely viewed it as overly broad or punitive. The absence of committee transcripts limits more detailed sentiment analysis, but the recorded votes show clear division.
The central contention is whether programmable money should be regulated as a consumer-protection issue at all, and whether the bill’s definitions and prohibitions are too expansive. Likely critics would object to the breadth of the prohibited factors, the inclusion of lawful political, religious, medical, and business activity, and the use of criminal penalties and business revocation for transaction denials. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing discrimination, preserving access to non-programmable payment options, and stopping social-credit-style financial controls.