SB2071 would add Tennessee statutory definitions and restrictions related to “programmable money,” expressly excluding both central bank digital currency and programmable money from certain existing UCC concepts such as “money” and “deposit account.” The bill defines programmable money broadly as currency that can be controlled by preset rules, used to approve or deny transactions, impose user-specific restrictions, expire or diminish, or implement a social credit score system.
The bill makes it unlawful to require any person to use programmable money for a transaction, including by offering only programmable-money payment options without a free nondigital alternative. It also prohibits issuers of programmable money from denying transactions based on a person’s political views, religion, protected characteristics, medical history, location, business sector, firearm ownership or lawful firearm-related activity, fossil-fuel or agriculture-related activity, support for immigration or anti-trafficking enforcement, ESG-related noncompliance, DEI-related policies, or other lawful conduct. Issuers must provide a written statement of specific reasons for a denial upon request, and may still refuse transactions that constitute criminal offenses or payments for criminal acts.
The bill creates enforcement mechanisms by making violations unfair or deceptive acts under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, authorizing action by the commissioner of financial institutions against state-chartered banks, and allowing the secretary of state to rescind an issuer’s authority to do business in Tennessee for knowing, intentional, or repeated violations. It also creates a private right of action for aggrieved parties, including statutory, declaratory, actual, and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and possible revocation of the defendant’s certificate of authority. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.
Because there is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the bill appears strongly protective of consumer choice, civil liberties, and limits on digital payment controls, while also reflecting skepticism toward central bank digital currency, ESG-linked restrictions, and social credit-style systems.
The main points of contention likely concern whether the bill is necessary or overly broad, especially its restrictions on issuer discretion, its detailed list of prohibited bases for transaction denial, and its treatment of automated or algorithmic decision-making. Financial institutions, payment issuers, and technology providers could view the measure as imposing significant compliance burdens and limiting risk-management tools, while supporters would likely frame it as preventing discrimination, coercive payment mandates, and politically or ideologically driven financial exclusion.
SB2071 would amend Tennessee’s commercial and consumer protection laws in Title 47 by carving out programmable money and central bank digital currency from certain statutory definitions, creating a new regulatory framework for programmable-money issuers, and adding a new prohibited practice under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. It would expose violators to private lawsuits, treble punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and state enforcement actions, while also giving the secretary of state authority to revoke a business’s authority to operate in Tennessee under specified conditions. The bill would directly affect banks, payment processors, digital currency issuers, and any entity offering programmable payment systems in the state.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call history. From the bill text, the measure appears to be driven by concern over digital financial control and discrimination, suggesting support from lawmakers wary of CBDCs, ESG-linked restrictions, and social-credit-style systems. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the materials prevents a definitive assessment of the chamber’s overall sentiment.
Likely contention centers on the bill’s broad prohibitions on transaction denial and its explicit ban on requiring programmable money, which could be seen as protecting consumer freedom but also limiting product design and compliance practices. Opponents may argue that the bill intrudes on issuer risk controls, anti-fraud measures, and contractual freedom, especially because it reaches automated decisions and a wide range of lawful conduct. Supporters are likely to emphasize protections against discrimination based on politics, religion, medical status, firearm ownership, fossil-fuel activity, and ESG/DEI-related criteria, as well as opposition to central bank digital currency and social credit systems.