At a second hearing on House Bill 195, legal experts and banking lawyers told the Ohio House Judiciary Committee that the bill would update the Uniform Commercial Code to address digital assets such as cryptocurrencies, non‑fungible tokens and other electronic property.

Professor Jeff Ferriol, speaking on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association and the Uniform Law Commission, said House Bill 195 contains a new UCC article to provide negotiable‑instrument‑style rules for transferring digital assets and amendments to ensure security‑interest protections for creditors. "House Bill 195 will update the UCC... First, it provides... what's essentially a negotiable instruments law to ensure the safe and effective transfer of digital assets, like cryptocurrency... Secondly, it will make amendments to existing chapter 1309 of the Ohio Revised Code dealing with security interests to ensure that creditors who rely on electronic digital assets as collateral for their loans are protected," he said.

Ferriol described a "waterfall" choice‑of‑law rule: the law specified in the electronic record or system governs; if no state is specified, the draft uses the law of the District of Columbia as a default. He said the District of Columbia adopted the uniform act in April 2024 and that a clear national default improves predictability for lenders.

Professor Ferriol and other witnesses, including Andy Nacal of Benesch Friedlander (chair of the Ohio State Bar Association banking and bankruptcy committee), described transition rules that allow existing secured creditors to "reperfect" under the new framework within a short period after enactment to protect prior perfection. Ferriol also noted that about two dozen states had enacted the model to date.

Committee members raised concerns about cybersecurity risks, evolving technology and the mechanics of perfection and control. Representative Thunberg asked about security and misuse; Andy Nacal said the bill is not a regulatory cybersecurity measure but provides certainty for lenders and purchasers. Questions about existing creditors and transition protections prompted witnesses to describe filing and control options under the draft law.

No committee vote was taken; the hearing recorded proponent testimony and technical questioning. Witnesses urged technical precision in choice‑of‑law and transition rules and said the drafting aims to be technology‑neutral to accommodate future developments.