[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6305395,"mediaKeyId","2448546-5407eb064f9d3080be659d671e74f85b","parentId",2448546,"title","Committee reviews studies and genetic‑privacy tweaks in H.137; staff to revise draft","audioSeconds",195,"startMs",111000,"endMs",306000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2448546-5407eb064f9d3080be659d671e74f85b&start=111&end=306","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2448546-5407eb064f9d3080be659d671e74f85b/thumbnail_111000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6305395/Vermont/Committee-reviews-studies-and-geneticprivacy-tweaks-in-H137-staff-to-revise-draft","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6305395-aa29003c2f84a54c513273c44c11d7f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773632651&Signature=L53Tr1X9HSkbysAs5~SUUSm5qGQrDVR7rQuXbUwbpqgZJ7IyyTLRnhSeoKDkTvnhCcAhzAy8PVoJPJub7cFCUk25kLCD8-fHLk4uI38sKcnFtmAuDgwqUyX~WUUxNuIsoC4Ecx8img8lyjd1wrzZ3hpufKELX25VxXNTCX5Eb-RB6oCf9Re19bubCgfSWf4rp6PTf17SYOdQRTjay5rrKiWJ82hjuDq9P3U2JycmCmRAwCuWtz7ALth2W9FlY3UTfDisb7LIVTyMje94OzqDh1pXFDJhJ52CqaeVF7SmMpVGjxgL6Sc-NC5rEJ8IIX7HYY5quFtc5LMy9cDisYUPtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-28T20:23:15.377Z","article","Legislative Council staff on Feb. 28 walked the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development through non‑kiosk provisions in draft 1.5 of H.137, including changes to study deadlines and clarifications to a genetic‑privacy proposal; committee members accepted the suggested edits and instructed staff to fold them into the redraft of the bill.

The staff presentation noted two study changes requested after DFR asked for additional time. For a study on consumer protections related to transaction holds when fraud is suspected, staff proposed replacing a November 15 final report requirement with an earlier status report to committee chairs (preliminary findings and recommendations), allowing for a draft legislative request by December and a final report by Jan. 15. A parallel timing change was suggested for a study on coerced debt. Committee members questioned the need for a preliminary report if there already was a vehicle (a bill) to address coerced debt; members agreed that in that case a single final report by Jan. 15 would suffice.

On genetic privacy, staff said DFR requested clarifying language to specify that the proposed restriction targets unfair genetic discrimination tied to results from direct‑to‑consumer genetic testing companies, and to make clear that insurers would generally need consumer consent before sharing a consumer’s genetic test information. Maria Royal (Legislative Council) described those as “good suggestions.” Mary Bloch was recorded as having requested the genetic language earlier.

Committee direction and next steps

Committee members accepted the study deadline changes and the genetic‑privacy clarifications during the H.137 review. Staff was directed to incorporate these edits into the bill redraft that will be circulated to the committee and returned for further consideration alongside other pending changes.

What was not decided

The committee did not set new statutory language beyond the clarifications presented, nor did it record a formal roll‑call vote on the study‑timeline or genetic‑privacy edits. The committee will consider the revised draft when Legislative Council completes the redraft and reconvenes the panel for a formal vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Commerce - 2025-02-28 - 1:00PM","oneSentenceSummary","Legislative Council and DFR proposed minor timing and language changes to H.137 outside the kiosk provisions: two consumer‑protection studies will be delayed and reframed, and a genetic‑privacy clause was clarified to emphasize preventing unfair genetic discrimination.","taxTitle","Commerce & Economic Development, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",36720,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6305398,"House commerce committee signals one-year moratorium extension while debating strict rules for crypto kiosks",6507,349000,6856000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2448546-5407eb064f9d3080be659d671e74f85b&start=349&end=6856","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2448546-5407eb064f9d3080be659d671e74f85b/thumbnail_349000.jpg","/articles/6305398/Vermont/House-commerce-committee-signals-one-year-moratorium-extension-while-debating-strict-rules-for-crypto-kiosks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6305398-b0030dac4cda60cc005d870f22196e2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773632651&Signature=NWooLAFKK7C4erHnZm1UFtlQhxPGL-VY8alKFc2Uq2EdR2v18VFFD-rq5hMoX4Yu4xYbt3wFkOIPUqxN9OHO4Yi~V~fCN3GMJu127nmvSHRsK3EuHSmaM4NpiQTa-iTZ8fZyc0m0TZP4ZVca1oCMU~tFN~LsTDmQvRQ6mPv2OwPbMiFB~7TcP87-iiBaOMdZ1W1-MZ1ecwfAy7uVVgBAliotynO0ooAUxTIOSi9uRyFV1bcs46g2Viru1gEobGFBvrgs8oLPYgtDGeIjSZqewl0QynT4NpTB7wqE68UvYuwUOI1qlsE-r87K3LdtkQ-0YnGZRCTOK-b6NG2CgUOTiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Feb. 28 reviewed draft language for H.137 that would impose detailed consumer‑protection, recordkeeping and compliance requirements on virtual currency kiosk operators and indicated by straw poll that it will extend the current kiosk moratorium for one year while staff and stakeholders continue negotiations.

Committee staff and the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) discussed proposed requirements in draft 1.5 of the bill, which would require kiosk operators to provide pre‑transaction disclosures and acknowledgements, both electronic and (as drafted) paper receipts showing digital wallet addresses and transaction identifiers, a prominently displayed toll‑free customer support number, mandatory live telephone screenings for certain customers, the use of blockchain analytics for risk scoring, anti‑fraud and enhanced‑due‑diligence policies, and a refund regime for fraudulent transactions affecting “new customers.” The draft also revisits the statutory fee cap and the daily transaction limit for kiosk transactions.

Why it matters: DFR and outside witnesses told the committee that kiosks have been linked to a substantial share of reported crypto fraud complaints and that rigorous protections or continued restrictions are needed to reduce harm. Industry witnesses said they are willing to adopt many protections but urged changes to limit business costs and preserve access for cash users.

The draft’s key provisions

- Pre‑transaction disclosures: Operators would be required to obtain a customer’s acknowledgement of specified items before completing a virtual‑currency sale at a kiosk, including the transaction amount, fees, any difference from market price, the operator’s refund policy, a consumer warning about common scams and a statement of material risks associated with virtual currency. The draft text includes an on‑screen warning that asks users whether they received a phone call directing them to pay via the kiosk and states that cryptocurrency purchases are irreversible and generally nonrefundable.

- Receipts and identification: For kiosk transactions the operator would give both an electronic receipt (sent to the customer’s registered phone) and a paper receipt that must include any applicable digital wallet address, the full name of the account owner and unique transaction identifiers.

- Identity verification and operator liability: The draft requires kiosks to verify a government‑issued ID for each transaction and collect the customer’s name, date of birth, phone number, address and email. The operator would be strictly liable for violations of that verification requirement, under the draft.

- Live customer support and screening: Operators must provide a live toll‑free number during kiosk hours and display it at the kiosk. The draft requires mandatory live telephone screenings of new customers over a specified age (the draft uses 60) prior to that customer’s first transaction, and for any customer conducting transactions that exceed a trigger within a consecutive 10‑day period. The operator would record and retain each live screening.

- Blockchain analytics and anti‑fraud programs: The draft would require operators to use blockchain analytics services to assess wallet risk, maintain documented anti‑fraud and enhanced due‑diligence policies reviewed by the operator’s governing body, and employ a full‑time compliance officer and a consumer‑protection officer who do not own more than 20% of the operator.

- Refunds: The draft creates an expanded refund pathway for fraud victims identified as “new customers” (defined in draft as customers whose account has been registered for not more than 72 hours). For qualifying new customers the draft would require a full refund (including fees) for fraudulent transactions made during the 72‑hour new customer window, subject to reporting conditions (a customer must report the fraud to a government or law‑enforcement agency and to the kiosk operator within specified timeframes). Other customers would be eligible for a refund of fees within a defined period if they report fraud to law enforcement and the operator.

- Fee cap and transaction limits: The current draft preserves a daily transaction limit of $1,000 and retains a statutory fee cap formula (the draft references a cap at the greater of $5 or 3 percent, with industry proposing up to 15 percent if extensive protections are required). Industry witnesses and DFR disagreed over whether existing limits should remain, be raised for existing customers, or be differentiated for new vs. existing customers.

Testimony and disagreement

Larry Lip of CoinFlip told the committee that CoinFlip does not serve businesses at its kiosks and that requiring paper receipts with a customer’s full name raises privacy and safety concerns. “We do not service businesses at our kiosks,” Lip said; he also cited federal retention obligations and said, “Under the Bank Secrecy Act, we're required to retain that information for 5 years.” Lip urged a higher transaction limit for existing customers and pushed for definitions and refund mechanics used in Minnesota and Connecticut as models.

Ethan McLaughlin, assistant general counsel at the Department of Financial Regulation, urged caution. He told the committee that DFR’s kiosk report and the attorney general’s letter had documented a large share of crypto complaints tied to kiosks and that reported incidents likely understate the actual problem. McLaughlin said DFR’s view is that strong protections are required if the moratorium is lifted; when asked about a ban or moratorium, he said the department “would have no objections to that.”

Committee action and next steps

After extended discussion and testimony the committee conducted a straw poll and indicated unanimous support to extend the existing moratorium on virtual currency kiosks for one year to allow further negotiations with DFR and kiosk proponents. Committee staff (Legislative Council) was directed to redraft H.137 to incorporate agreed language and to add a Medigap supplement from the health‑care committee for further consideration. Members said they will reconvene for a formal vote after the redraft.

What the draft does not settle

Committee members and witnesses flagged unresolved items, including whether to retain paper receipts, the proper dollar thresholds and time windows for new‑customer refunds and reporting, the correct daily transaction limit for established customers, how long recorded live screenings should be retained, and the appropriate statutory period in which victims must report to preserve refund rights. DFR recommended longer reporting windows than the industry; industry witnesses favored shorter windows coupled with stronger pre‑transaction screening to reduce refunds.

Taper: The committee’s decision to extend the moratorium shifts the next substantive step to drafting staff and follow‑up sessions between DFR and operators. The committee said it will take a formal vote on H.137 at a later date after the redraft and further negotiation.","The Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development on Feb. 28 reviewed draft amendments to H.137 that would regulate virtual currency kiosks, heard testimony from industry and regulators, and gave a straw‑poll showing unanimous support to extend the existing kiosk moratorium for one year while the bill is revised.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews studies and genetic‑privacy tweaks in H.137; staff to revise draft

House commerce committee signals one-year moratorium extension while debating strict rules for crypto kiosks