Consumer protection: other; cryptocurrency kiosks; prohibit the installation and operation of. Creates new act.
SB 980 would create the “Cryptocurrency Kiosk Fraud Prevention Act” and prohibit the installation and operation of cryptocurrency kiosks in Michigan. The bill defines cryptocurrency kiosks broadly as electronic terminals that allow customers to buy, sell, or exchange fiat currency and cryptocurrency, whether the kiosk connects to an outside exchange or uses cryptocurrency held by the operator.
Under the bill, no person could install or operate a cryptocurrency kiosk, and no person could allow one to be installed or operated on premises they own, lease, or control. The measure is framed as a consumer protection and fraud-prevention policy aimed at eliminating a payment channel that can be used in scams, especially transactions involving cash-to-crypto transfers.
The bill would add a new state law banning cryptocurrency kiosks outright and would create civil infraction penalties for violations. A first violation would carry a fine of $2,000 to $5,000, and any second or subsequent violation would carry a fine of $5,000 to $10,000. The law would affect kiosk operators, property owners, landlords, and other persons or entities that control premises where a kiosk might be located, and it would give state enforcement authorities a new basis to penalize prohibited kiosk activity.
Based on the bill title and framing, the measure appears to be driven by consumer protection and fraud-prevention concerns rather than by support for cryptocurrency access. The available record does not include committee testimony or votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the materials provided. The overall tone of the bill is precautionary and restrictive, suggesting concern about scams and misuse of kiosks.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s complete prohibition on cryptocurrency kiosks rather than a narrower regulatory approach. Supporters would likely view the ban as necessary to stop fraud and protect consumers, while opponents could argue that it is overly broad, limits legitimate access to digital assets, and imposes burdens on businesses and property owners. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the specific arguments of legislators, industry stakeholders, or consumer advocates are not available in the record.