Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Assets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances two digital‑asset measures: framework and DFPI pilot for crypto payments
Summary
The Assembly advanced two bills on digital assets: AB 1052, which would clarify state law for self‑custodied digital assets and unclaimed property and restrict public officials from issuing tokens, and AB 1180, which authorizes a DFPI pilot to accept digital financial assets for select fees.
The Assembly committee voted to advance two bills addressing digital assets and state use of cryptocurrency‑style instruments.
AB 1052, authored by Chair Valencia, would update state law to recognize certain self‑custodied digital assets as lawful consideration for goods and services, establish clearer rules for unclaimed digital property, and bar public officials from issuing or promoting digital assets while in office. Dennis Porter of the Satoshi Action Fund, the bill’s sponsor, said section 5 of the measure “is the consumer protection heart of the bill,” arguing it would end regulatory uncertainty and prevent local governments from banning or surcharging lawful self‑custodied payments. Porter urged the committee to pass the bill to protect users and strengthen unclaimed‑property procedures.
AB 1180 would create a pilot program authorizing the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to enable payment of certain state fees using digital financial assets and require a report to the Legislature on operational challenges and recommendations for broader acceptance.
Supporters described the bills as steps to modernize state policy and to provide clarity for consumers and businesses using digital assets. Opponents raised concerns about the drafting of AB 1052’s section 5 and potential unintended consequences as DFPI builds its licensing program under existing law (cited as AB 39). Robert Harrell of the Consumer Federation of California urged removal or cleanup of section 5, saying the language could cause “dramatic unintended consequences” as the DFPI licensing system is implemented.
Both bills passed the committee’s recorded roll calls and were referred to the next committees for fiscal and policy review: AB 1052 was referred to Elections; AB 1180 was referred to Appropriations. Committee discussion emphasized the need for continued consultation with DFPI, the State Treasurer’s office and consumer groups to refine implementation and to avoid drafting conflicts with the existing licensing and unclaimed‑property frameworks.
