the Most Aggressive State Bill Yet

At a Glance

3% fee cap (or $5 flat, whichever is higher) — would represent an 85-90% revenue reduction for operators currently charging 15-25% per transaction
$1,000 daily transaction limit per customer — paired with mandatory government-issued photo ID and photograph for every transaction
Mandatory scam reimbursement within 30 days — operators must fully reimburse customers if law enforcement confirms a transaction was fraudulent
SB 386 / AB 384 filed in both chambers — 7 Democratic Senate co-sponsors led by Sen. Kelda Roys; Assembly companion introduced July 31, 2025 by Rep. Ryan Spaude
FinCEN notice issued August 4, 2025 — federal regulator flagged Bitcoin ATMs as a fraud vector targeting elderly victims, days after the Assembly bill was introduced

Seven Wisconsin state senators filed Senate Bill 386 on August 11, 2025, a companion to Assembly Bill 384 introduced in the lower house on July 31. Together, the identical bills would impose a 3% fee cap on Bitcoin ATM transactions, mandate photo ID verification for every transaction, limit customers to $1,000 per day, and — most significantly — require operators to fully reimburse victims of fraudulent transactions if reported within 30 days. If enacted, this would be the most restrictive Bitcoin ATM law in the United States. The fee cap alone would obliterate the business model of most major operators, who currently charge between 15% and 25% per transaction. And the mandatory reimbursement provision would effectively shift scam liability from consumers to operators — a concept no other state has yet put into law.

Proposed fee cap (or $5 flat, whichever is higher)

$1,000

Proposed daily transaction limit per customer

30 days

Window for law enforcement to trigger mandatory reimbursement

Senate co-sponsors (all Democrats)

What the Wisconsin Bills Would Require

The twin bills — SB 386 in the Senate and AB 384 in the Assembly — tackle Bitcoin ATM regulation from every angle simultaneously. Filing identical legislation in both chambers is a procedural tactic to speed passage, allowing both houses to consider the bill concurrently.

Key Provisions of SB 386 / AB 384:

Licensing: Operators must hold a money transmitting license to operate in Wisconsin
Identity verification: Government-issued photo ID (passport or driver's license) required for every transaction, plus a photograph of the customer
Customer data collection: Name, date of birth, phone number, address, and email required for all users
Fee cap: Maximum of $5 flat fee or 3% of transaction value, whichever is higher
Daily transaction limit: $1,000 per customer per day
Fraud warnings: Physical labels warning of scam potential must be placed "within the customer's field of vision" on the front of every machine
Mandatory reimbursement: Operators must fully reimburse customers if a transaction is confirmed fraudulent by law enforcement within 30 days

The Fee Cap That Would Reshape the Industry

The 3% fee cap is the provision that would hit operators hardest. Currently, major Bitcoin ATM operators routinely charge fees ranging from 15% to over 23%. The Massachusetts Attorney General's lawsuit against Bitcoin Depot alleges the company used "drip pricing" to obscure fees that sometimes exceeded its own posted 23% cap. The Iowa Attorney General's complaint against both Bitcoin Depot and CoinFlip similarly targets hidden fees of 23%. A 3% cap would represent a roughly 85-90% reduction in operator revenue per transaction. For context, most Bitcoin ATM operators describe their margins as already thin due to cash logistics, compliance costs, and machine maintenance. Whether any major operator could sustain operations in Wisconsin under these terms is an open question — and likely the point. The bill's sponsors appear to view the current fee structure as itself exploitative. The "$5 or 3%, whichever is higher" floor does protect small transactions from being uneconomical. On a $100 purchase, the operator could still charge $5 (5%). But on the high-value transactions that generate the most revenue — and that regulators have found are most often scam-driven — the cap would be devastating.

Mandatory Reimbursement: Shifting Scam Liability to Operators

The reimbursement provision may be the bill's most consequential innovation. Under the proposal, if law enforcement contacts an operator within 30 days to confirm a transaction was fraudulent, the operator must fully reimburse the customer. This flips the current dynamic entirely. Today, when a scam victim feeds cash into a Bitcoin ATM, the operator takes its fee, the Bitcoin is sent to the scammer's wallet, and the victim has essentially no recourse. The operator's position — stated repeatedly in legal filings — is that they are a neutral platform and bear no responsibility for what customers do with their Bitcoin. State Attorneys General have been increasingly rejecting that argument. The Massachusetts AG's lawsuit against Bitcoin Depot alleges the company knew that 83% of customers transacting $10,000 or more were scam victims. The DC AG's case against Athena Bitcoin found median victim ages of 71. Iowa's investigation found Bitcoin Depot scam rates as high as 98% among certain customer segments. Wisconsin's approach skips the litigation entirely and writes the liability directly into statute. If this becomes law, operators would face a straightforward choice: either invest heavily in fraud prevention to avoid reimbursement costs, or exit the Wisconsin market.

Context: Part of a National Regulatory Wave

Wisconsin's bill arrives amid the most aggressive period of Bitcoin ATM regulation in U.S. history. The broader context makes the bill's chances — and its potential to inspire copycat legislation — worth tracking closely.

Timeline of Recent Regulatory Actions:

July 31, 2025: Wisconsin Assembly Bill 384 introduced by Rep. Ryan Spaude
August 4, 2025: FinCEN issues nationwide notice urging financial institutions to report suspicious Bitcoin ATM transactions
August 11, 2025: Wisconsin Senate Bill 386 filed by Sen. Kelda Roys and six co-sponsors
Ongoing: AG lawsuits active against Bitcoin Depot (MA, IA), CoinFlip (IA), Athena Bitcoin (DC)
January 2026: Missouri AG issues simultaneous CIDs to five operators — Bitcoin Depot, CoinFlip, Athena, RockItCoin, and Byte Federal

The FinCEN notice issued on August 4 — just days after the Assembly bill was introduced — underscores the federal dimension. FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki specifically flagged Bitcoin ATMs as a vector for fraud targeting elderly victims, identifying fraud, cybercrime, and drug trafficking as the three main illicit uses. That federal acknowledgment gives state legislators additional political cover to act aggressively. Internationally, the trend is even more pronounced. New Zealand banned Bitcoin ATMs entirely in July 2025, citing money laundering concerns. UK regulators seized machines and arrested operators in London the same month. Even Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan — a small town that doesn't have a single Bitcoin ATM — passed preemptive regulations.

Political Reality Check

All seven Senate co-sponsors are Democrats. Assembly Bill 384 was also introduced by a Democrat. Wisconsin's legislature has been closely divided in recent sessions, and crypto regulation has not historically broken cleanly along party lines. The bill's prospects depend heavily on whether Republican legislators view the fraud data as compelling enough to overcome skepticism about price controls and heavy-handed regulation. The companion bill strategy — filing identical legislation simultaneously in both chambers — signals the sponsors are serious about moving quickly rather than using the bills as messaging vehicles. But serious legislative obstacles remain. That said, even if these specific bills stall, they establish a template. The 3% fee cap, daily transaction limits, photo ID requirements, and mandatory reimbursement framework are now in the legislative record. Other states watching the AG enforcement wave — particularly Missouri, which just launched its own broad investigation — may borrow heavily from Wisconsin's approach.

What Operators Should Watch For

The Wisconsin bills, combined with the FinCEN notice and the expanding roster of AG enforcement actions, point toward a regulatory environment that is tightening faster than many operators anticipated. The key question is no longer whether states will regulate Bitcoin ATMs more aggressively, but how aggressively — and whether operators who've built their business models on double-digit percentage fees and minimal fraud intervention can adapt before the regulatory wave reaches their core markets. For operators currently facing enforcement actions — particularly Bitcoin Depot, CoinFlip, and Athena Bitcoin — the Wisconsin bill adds another dimension of pressure. Even if it doesn't pass this session, the mandatory reimbursement concept is now on the table. If an AG in Massachusetts or Iowa decides to seek similar relief through litigation, the Wisconsin framework provides a ready-made blueprint. For consumers, our consumer protection resources page outlines what to look for before using any Bitcoin ATM, including how to verify an operator is properly licensed in your state. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a Bitcoin ATM scam, report it to both FinCEN and your state Attorney General's office — those reports are directly fueling the enforcement actions that are reshaping this industry.

Wisconsin Moves to Cap Bitcoin ATM Fees at 3% and Force Scam Reimbursements — the Most Aggressive State Bill Yet