TRANSACTIONS – Amends and adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding programmable money.
H0750a creates a new legal framework in Idaho for “programmable money,” which the bill describes as digital or electronic money that can be controlled by code or by an issuer’s rules. It excludes programmable money from existing Uniform Commercial Code definitions of money and sets out rules governing how it may be used in transactions. The bill is intended to preserve lawful use of digital assets and alternative payment methods while limiting issuer control over consumer spending.
The measure prohibits issuers from using programmable money to restrict, deny, or condition transactions based on a person’s lawful personal characteristics or lawful activities. It also bars the use of programmable money for social credit scoring, requires transparency when a transaction is denied, and provides enforcement tools including civil remedies, attorney’s fees, and criminal penalties. The bill’s stated purpose is consumer protection in payment systems, especially where digital money could be used to monitor or control behavior.
The bill would amend Idaho law governing commercial transactions by carving programmable money out of existing money definitions under the Uniform Commercial Code and adding new statutory protections for users of digital payment systems. It would affect issuers, payment platforms, merchants, and consumers by limiting how programmable features can be used to block or condition lawful purchases, while creating disclosure and enforcement requirements. According to the fiscal note, it has no expected fiscal impact on state or local government.
The available context suggests the bill was supported by its sponsors and framed as a consumer-rights and anti-surveillance measure. The bill’s stated goals emphasize protecting lawful commerce, preventing discriminatory transaction controls, and preserving payment choice. However, the bill ultimately failed in the Senate and was returned to the House, indicating that it did not secure enough support to advance.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s restrictions on issuer control and its broad treatment of programmable money. Supporters likely viewed those restrictions as necessary to prevent discrimination, social credit-style monitoring, and denial of lawful purchases, while opponents may have been concerned about overregulation, enforcement complexity, or unintended effects on digital payment innovation and issuer risk management. The failure in the Senate suggests unresolved disagreement over whether the bill appropriately balances consumer protections with flexibility for emerging payment technologies.