Tom Emmer (R-MN)
Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act," aims to create a safe harbor for certain blockchain entities. It seeks to prevent specific developers and service providers from being classified as money transmitters or financial institutions. This protection applies as long as the entity does not have control over the digital assets used by their customers. The bill defines specific terms for blockchain developers, networks, services, and what constitutes "control."
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides significant legal clarity and reduces compliance costs for blockchain-related businesses.
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Offers a safe harbor for developers to operate without the heavy burden of money transmitter licensing.
- Scored +4
Is this likely to grow the economy?
Provides legal certainty that can stimulate innovation and economic activity within the blockchain industry.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill limits the ability of states to enforce certain laws and bring causes of action.
- Scored -4
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill reduces regulation for certain blockchain entities, moving away from traditional oversight.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Reduces the ability of state laws to impose liability on developers, potentially limiting consumer recourse.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection from licensing requirements: Non-controlling blockchain developers and providers will not be treated as money transmitters or financial institutions, which prevents them from being held liable for unlicensed or unregistered conduct (Section 2(a)).
-
Clarification of legal status: By defining "control" as the unilateral ability to obtain data to initiate transactions without third-party consent, the bill provides a clear distinction for those who do not have such power (Section 2(c)(4)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
No change to intellectual property protections: The bill explicitly states that it will not limit or expand any existing laws regarding intellectual property (Section 2(b)(1)).
-
State law limitations: The bill prevents any state or local law that is inconsistent with this section from being used to bring a cause of action or impose liability (Section 2(b)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Offers a safe harbor for developers to operate without the heavy burden of money transmitter licensing. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides legal certainty that can stimulate innovation and economic activity within the blockchain industry. Is this likely to create jobs? — By reducing regulatory barriers for developers, it may foster growth and hiring in the blockchain sector. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Reduces the ability of state laws to impose liability on developers, potentially limiting consumer recourse.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides significant legal clarity and reduces compliance costs for blockchain-related businesses.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill reduces regulation for certain blockchain entities, moving away from traditional oversight.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill creates a federal safe harbor that preempts certain state and local laws. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill limits the ability of states to enforce certain laws and bring causes of action.
- 3/18/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/6/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/21/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Warren DavidsonRepublican · Ohio
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Bill HuizengaRepublican · Michigan
Thomas KeanRepublican · New Jersey
Ritchie TorresDemocrat · New York