To amend sections 1315.05 and 1315.18 and to enact sections 1349.57, 1349.571, 1349.572, 1349.573, 1349.574, 1349.575, 1349.576, 1349.577, 1349.578, 1349.579, 1349.5710, 1349.5711, and 1349.5712 of the Revised Code to establish regulations for digital asset kiosks and require they be registered as money transmitters.
HB648 establishes a regulatory framework for digital asset kiosks in Ohio and treats businesses that own, operate, advertise, solicit, or facilitate those kiosks as money transmitters subject to licensure under Chapter 1315 of the Revised Code. The bill defines digital assets and digital asset kiosks, then imposes a series of consumer-protection requirements on kiosk operators, including pre-transaction risk disclosures, terms-and-conditions disclosures, itemized receipts, customer acknowledgment of disclosures, and live customer support during operating hours.
The bill also adds anti-fraud and identity-verification measures. New customers must be subject to a 72-hour hold, with a right to cancel and receive a refund of funds less irreversible network fees. The bill sets daily transaction limits, requires government-issued ID verification for certain transactions, restricts data collection and marketing use of customer contact information, and requires special telephone review for certain older customers making larger transactions. It also requires a chief compliance officer, full-time compliance staffing, and rules against structuring transactions to evade identification requirements. The superintendent of financial institutions is given rulemaking authority and must annually adjust transaction limits for inflation starting in 2027.
The bill amends existing money transmitter law by strengthening financial-responsibility and wind-down requirements for licensees. It raises or confirms minimum net worth standards, requires a detailed wind-down plan to protect consumer funds, and authorizes the superintendent to oversee cessation of business, control assets, or require contract termination when needed to protect customers. These changes would affect digital asset kiosk operators directly and, more broadly, the state’s money transmission regulatory regime.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly consumer-protective and fraud-prevention oriented. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, the structure of the bill suggests an intent to respond to scams, irreversible transfers, and risks associated with volatile digital assets rather than to promote industry expansion. The bill’s detailed warnings, hold period, and special protections for older customers indicate a cautious approach to digital asset kiosks.
The main points of contention likely involve the compliance burden on kiosk operators, the 72-hour hold for new customers, transaction caps, mandatory identity checks, and the special telephone screening requirement for older customers. Operators may view these provisions as costly or restrictive, while supporters would likely argue they are necessary to reduce fraud, protect consumers, and ensure accountability in a high-risk market.
HB648 would expand Ohio’s money transmission laws to expressly cover digital asset kiosks and require their operators to obtain money transmitter licensure, comply with disclosure and recordkeeping rules, and meet new consumer-protection and anti-fraud obligations. It would also amend existing provisions governing licensee financial condition and business wind-down procedures, increasing oversight by the superintendent of financial institutions and adding specific protections for consumer funds when a licensee ceases operations.
No committee testimony or votes are available, so there is no recorded legislative debate to summarize. Based on the bill’s contents, the measure appears to be driven by concern about scams, consumer losses, and the risks of irreversible digital asset transactions, with a generally cautious and protective policy posture. The bill’s design suggests support for tighter regulation rather than a neutral or industry-friendly approach.
Likely areas of contention include whether digital asset kiosk operators should be regulated as money transmitters, whether the 72-hour hold and daily transaction limits are too restrictive, and whether mandatory identity verification and recorded phone calls for older customers are appropriate or overly burdensome. Privacy concerns may also arise from the bill’s data collection and retention rules, while consumer advocates are likely to support the fraud warnings, cancellation rights, and refund provisions as necessary safeguards.