Bitcoin ATM Legislative Update: 15 State Bills in January 2026 |

Bitcoin ATM Legislative Update: 15 State Bills in January 2026

Executive Summary

The start of 2026 has brought a significant wave of state-level legislation targeting virtual currency kiosk operations. With at least 15 bills introduced across multiple states in January alone, the industry faces both regulatory challenges and opportunities.

Key takeaway: While several bills introduce new compliance requirements, many align with best practices already adopted by responsible operators. However, some provisions—particularly restrictive daily transaction limits and excessive fee caps—threaten legitimate economic activity.

Understanding the ALEC Model Framework

Throughout this analysis, we reference the ALEC model framework as a benchmark for evaluating state legislation.

What is the ALEC Model?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) adopted the Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Access and Protection Act in November 2025. This model legislation provides a balanced framework that many state legislators are using as a template.

Core provisions include:

  • Licensing: Operators must hold a valid money transmission license
  • Transaction limits: $3,000 daily limit (adjusted annually for inflation)
  • Location reporting: Annual reporting of all kiosk locations to state agencies
  • Recordkeeping: Transaction records and law enforcement cooperation
  • New customer protections: Enhanced protections during first five days

High Priority Bills

The following bills have the most significant implications for Bitcoin ATM operators and require immediate attention.

Michigan HB5469 HIGH IMPACT
Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Protection Act
Comprehensive regulatory framework requiring mandatory warning signage, live customer service availability, anti-fraud program implementation, and regular reporting to state regulators. Mirrors the ALEC model framework.
Introduced: Jan 27, 2026 Status: House Regulatory Reform Committee
Michigan HB5470 HIGH IMPACT
Money Transmitter License Requirements
Companion bill to HB5469 that explicitly subjects virtual currency kiosk operators to Michigan's money transmitter licensing requirements by amending MCL 487.1003.
Introduced: Jan 27, 2026 Status: House Regulatory Reform Committee
Missouri HB3043 HIGH IMPACT
Attorney General Civil Action Authority
Authorizes Missouri's Attorney General to bring civil actions against virtual currency kiosk operators. Follows AG Catherine Hanaway's January 2026 investigation into five major operators regarding fee disclosure practices and potential consumer fraud facilitation.
Status: Read Second Time (H) - Jan 22, 2026 Context: Related Investigation
Virginia SB489 HIGH IMPACT
Virtual Currency Kiosk Operator Licensing
Requires virtual currency kiosk operators to obtain state licensure and establishes penalties for non-compliance. Virginia is transitioning to a new money transmitter framework under Chapter 19.1 of Title 6.2, effective July 1, 2026.
Introduced: Jan 13, 2026 Status: Senate Commerce and Labor Committee

Moderate Impact Bills

Utah SB0173 MODERATE
Cryptocurrency Amendments
Builds on Utah's existing blockchain-friendly legislation (HB230 from March 2025). Utah currently exempts blockchain token transmission from money transmitter requirements under UT Code § 7-25-102.
Introduced: Jan 21, 2026 Status: Senate Rules Committee
Tennessee HB1885 / SB2136 MODERATE
Illegal Activity Amendments
Companion bills amending Tennessee Code across multiple titles relating to illegal activity and cryptocurrency. Tennessee currently does not regulate virtual currency under its money transmitter framework.
Filed: Jan 21/23, 2026 Status: Filed
Hawaii HB1642 MODERATE
Consumer Protection
Consumer protection bill that has moved quickly through its first reading. Hawaii has historically maintained strict money transmitter requirements.
Introduced: Jan 21, 2026 Status: Passed First Reading

Positive Development for the Industry

Virginia SB557 POSITIVE
Commonwealth Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Fund
Virginia is considering establishing a state strategic cryptocurrency reserve fund. This follows similar movements at the federal level with the BITCOIN Act of 2025 (S.954) and state-level initiatives in Texas, Arizona, and West Virginia. Government adoption of Bitcoin as a reserve asset validates the asset class and creates aligned interests between policymakers and industry participants.
Introduced: Jan 21, 2026 Status: Senate General Laws and Technology Committee

Complete Bill Summary

State Bill Summary Status
MI HB5469 Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Protection Act House Committee
MI HB5470 Money Transmitter License Requirements House Committee
MO HB3043 AG Civil Action Authority Read Second Time
UT SB0173 Cryptocurrency Amendments Senate Rules
VA SB489 Kiosk Operator Licensing Senate Committee
VA SB557 Strategic Crypto Reserve Fund Senate Committee
TN HB1885 Illegal Activity Amendments Filed
TN SB2136 Illegal Activity Amendments Filed
HI HB1642 Consumer Protection First Reading Passed
UT SB0155 Unclaimed Property Amendments Senate Committee
IL HB4541 Unclaimed Property Act Filed
MD HB549 Public Ethics - Virtual Currency House Committee
WV HB4787 Anti-Terrorism Act House Judiciary
UT SB0162 Online Sales Tax Amendments Senate Committee

Federal Regulatory Landscape

FinCEN Notice FIN-2025-NTC1 (August 2025)

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's notice continues to shape regulatory discussions. FBI IC3 data showed over 10,956 complaints and $246.7 million in reported losses in 2024—a 99% increase from the prior year.

Key requirements: Registration as MSBs, robust AML/KYC programs, SAR filing for transactions over $2,000 involving potential criminal activity, and CTRs for transactions over $10,000.

Federal S.710 - Crypto ATM Fraud Prevention Act of 2025

This federal bill, sponsored by Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Reed, and Welch, remains in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Key provisions include quarterly location reporting to Treasury, enhanced disclosure requirements, and mandatory fraud warnings at kiosks.

Notably, the bill includes a provision allowing customers to request refunds within 30 days of reporting fraud—a measure that requires careful consideration of operational implementation.

Recommendations for Operators

  1. Benchmark Against the ALEC Model: Review operations against the ALEC framework. Meeting or exceeding these standards positions operators for compliance across multiple jurisdictions.
  2. Audit Compliance Programs: Review anti-fraud policies, customer service availability, fee disclosure practices, and blockchain analytics capabilities.
  3. Document Fraud Prevention: Maintain detailed records of fraud prevention measures, customer complaints, and SAR filings.
  4. Engage with Legislators: Provide industry perspective to bill sponsors and committee members. Reference the ALEC model as balanced regulation.
  5. Prepare for Licensing: If operating in states without current kiosk-specific requirements, compile licensing application materials.

Industry Perspective: Transaction Limits

While the ALEC model's $3,000 daily transaction limit represents a consensus approach, there is ongoing debate about whether such limits effectively prevent fraud or merely inconvenience legitimate users.

Scammers can direct victims to make transactions over multiple days or across multiple kiosks. Meanwhile, legitimate users converting tax refunds, insurance payouts, or business revenue face artificial barriers.

Enhanced protections for new customers during an initial verification period (such as a 72-hour new customer period) may represent a more targeted approach than blanket daily limits on established customers.

Conclusion

The wave of state legislation reflects growing government attention to the Bitcoin ATM industry. Clear, consistent regulation can provide operational certainty and legitimacy for responsible operators.

Operators who have invested in compliance infrastructure are well-positioned to thrive under reasonable regulation. The key is engaging constructively with legislators to ensure rules target actual harm rather than restricting legitimate economic activity.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Operators should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding compliance obligations in specific jurisdictions. Bill status and provisions may change as legislation moves through the process.