S-710-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1347-1348; text: CR S1348-1350)
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would require operators of cryptocurrency kiosks to register kiosk locations with the Treasury Department, show fraud warnings, issue receipts, and adopt written anti-fraud policies. It would cap new customers at $2,000 per day and $10,000 total, require verbal confirmation for new-customer transactions of $500 or more, and require refunds for fraud victims who report within 30 days. Violations would carry civil penalties of $10,000 per violation per day, and willful refund denials would carry damages of three times the refund or $10,000, whichever is greater.
Who benefits
Consumers targeted by impersonation and similar scams who use kiosks, especially older adults, who could recover funds and face lower loss limits in their first 14 days. Law enforcement and FinCEN, which would receive kiosk location lists and dedicated contact points. Compliant kiosk operators may gain from clearer, uniform federal standards and reduced reputational harm. State regulators gain a federal baseline while keeping the ability to set stricter rules.
Who is hurt
Kiosk operators, particularly small ones, would bear costs for a full-time compliance officer, live customer service during all operating hours, blockchain analytics, physical receipt printers, and refund liability, with steep daily penalties. Legitimate new customers would face transaction caps and added verification steps, including live calls. Host businesses, such as convenience stores, may lose kiosk revenue if operators withdraw machines. Operators and customers who value privacy may object to sharing wallet addresses and personal data.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that crypto kiosks have become a preferred payment channel for scammers, citing FTC and FBI data showing rapidly rising losses, with older adults hit hardest. They contend that transaction limits, warnings, verbal confirmation, and refunds put the same kinds of safeguards on kiosks that banks and wire services already use. They argue that a national baseline, with states free to go further, closes gaps in the patchwork of state laws.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's requirements, including a full-time compliance officer, live support during all operating hours, and mandatory refunds with triple damages, could drive smaller operators out of business and reduce legitimate access to digital assets. They contend that refunds based on a police report and affidavit invite disputes and abuse, and that new-customer caps penalize lawful buyers. They argue that existing fraud, anti-money-laundering, and state laws already apply, and that the $10,000 daily penalties are disproportionate.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Commerce Clause, since kiosk transactions are economic activity that Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and United States v. Lopez (1995) treat as regulable, and on the Necessary and Proper Clause. The preemption provision preserves stricter state laws, so it raises little Tenth Amendment tension, and the civil penalties and refund mandates could draw Due Process Clause challenges over excessive fines.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand Treasury and FinCEN oversight authority over a new class of businesses, with checks from congressional statutory limits, judicial review of penalty assessments under existing section 5321 procedures, and continued state regulatory authority.
Historical precedent
Congress previously brought money transmitters and other money services businesses under federal registration and anti-money-laundering rules through 31 U.S.C. 5330 and the Bank Secrecy Act, and many states have since enacted their own kiosk limits and refund rules.