Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sterling Heights introduces ordinance to license and regulate cryptocurrency machines
Summary
Council introduced an ordinance to add licensing and operational rules for virtual-currency machines after police described local crypto-ATM scams; provisions include a specialty license, photo ID, a $1,000 transaction cap for new customers and required daily logs for 90 days.
Sterling Heights City Council voted to introduce an ordinance to amend Chapter 29 of the city code to require licensing and operational rules for virtual-currency (crypto) machines, following a police presentation on recent local scams.
Police Captain Colleen Hopper told the council that Sterling Heights had 23 active crypto-related fraud cases since Jan. 1, 2025 and documented resident losses of $542,000. Hopper said the proposed rules are a "victim-centered approach" and argued the measure "will make Sterling Heights a harder place for scammers to operate." She warned, "once that money is submitted, it is gone." The presentation included national reporting on growing losses tied to coin ATMs and local case examples.
Under the ordinance as presented, operators and host businesses would need a specialty virtual-currency license issued by the city clerk (required by 2026-03-31 if the ordinance is adopted). Other provisions explained to council include annual licensing and inspections, a requirement that the license be displayed on machines, a live customer-service hotline, photo ID for transactions, and conspicuous disclosures of fees and the finality of transactions. New customers (first-time users at that operator) would be limited to $1,000 in transactions per 24-hour period and operators must keep a daily log of transactions for 90 days.
Councilmembers asked about enforcement and potential duplicate regulation at the state level. City attorney and staff said licensing and annual inspections will be the primary local enforcement tools and that operators and host sites would be licensed separately so both parties have obligations. Several councilmembers urged follow-up community education targeted to seniors and offered to press state legislators for complementary statewide rules.
Councilmember Radke moved to introduce the ordinance; the motion was seconded and the introduction passed by voice vote. The introduction does not adopt the ordinance into law; it places the text on the council's agenda for subsequent consideration and public notice.
Next steps: the ordinance will return for additional council consideration and formal adoption procedures, including public notice and the opportunity for final vote(s).
