Crypto Law Profile
North Carolina HB 920 was filed as the NC Digital Asset Freedom Act and later replaced by a committee substitute focused on virtual currency kiosk consumer protections, licensing, fee caps, refunds, and anti-fraud controls.
North Carolina House Bill 920 is a 2025–2026 House bill that began as the NC Digital Asset Freedom Act and, as of June 9, 2026, remains pending in committee under a substantially revised title: Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Protection Act. The June 2, 2026 committee substitute replaced the original digital-asset payment framework with a proposed consumer-protection regime for virtual currency kiosks. The bill is still a bill, not an enacted law, and should be tracked as an in-committee North Carolina measure.
HB 920 was filed on April 10, 2025, passed first reading on April 14, 2025, and was referred through House committees including Commerce and Economic Development, Finance, and Rules. On June 2, 2026, the House reported a favorable committee substitute and re-referred the measure to Finance. LegiScan lists the bill as introduced with 25% progression, pending in House Finance, and with the latest text marked amended.
The title change is material for editors and readers. The University of North Carolina School of Government’s Legislative Reporting Service notes that the committee substitute changed the long title; the original long title would have allowed digital assets in economic transactions and tax payments, while the substituted title is an act to enact the Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Protection Act.
The introduced version would have created Article 52 of Chapter 66, cited as the North Carolina Digital Asset Freedom Act. It applied only to digital assets that met detailed criteria for decentralization, market longevity, liquidity, regulatory classification, proof-of-work security, censorship resistance, uptime, and predictable supply. The introduced text also would have recognized qualifying digital assets as a valid medium of exchange and stated that a transaction could not be denied legal effect solely because it used a qualifying digital asset.
The first edition also proposed allowing taxpayers to choose a qualifying digital asset to pay taxes to the Department of Revenue. It would have required dollar-equivalent reporting using the digital asset-to-dollar exchange rate at the time of payment or transaction and would have directed the Department of Revenue to maintain daily exchange rates. Those provisions are historical context for the bill’s original “freedom act” framing, but they do not appear in the second edition that is currently before the House.
The current second edition would add a new Article 26 to Chapter 53. It defines virtual currency, virtual currency kiosks, kiosk operators, digital wallets, blockchain analytics, new customers, and related terms. It places supervision with the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks and states that federal law, including the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act, governs to the extent of any inconsistency.
Violations would be treated as unfair trade practices, fraudulent inducement of a kiosk transaction would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, and local governments would retain authority to impose nonconflicting or greater kiosk requirements. If enacted in its current form, the Commissioner would have to adopt implementing rules by December 1, 2026, and most provisions would become effective December 1, 2026.
Second edition would create the Virtual Currency Kiosk Consumer Protection Act in Chapter 53, Article 26.
Kiosk operators doing business in North Carolina would be deemed money transmitters and require licensure under Chapter 53, Article 16B.
Operators would provide risk, fee, exchange-rate, spread, liability, warning, and receipt disclosures before or after covered kiosk transactions.
Operators would use blockchain analytics, maintain anti-fraud policies, provide live weekday customer service, and designate compliance personnel.
The bill would set $1,000 and $2,500 daily limits, allow specified refunds and cancellations, and cap aggregate kiosk fees at 3%.
Violations would be unfair trade practices; fraudulent inducement would be a Class 1 misdemeanor; local nonconflicting regulation would remain available.
HB 920 was filed with a first edition addressing qualifying digital assets, exchange, tax payments, and kiosk protections.
The House passed first reading and referred HB 920 to Commerce, Finance, and Rules committees.
House committee substitute replaced the prior edition and changed the bill to a virtual currency kiosk consumer protection proposal.
After the favorable committee substitute, HB 920 was re-referred to the House Finance Committee.
North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, North Carolina Department of Revenue, North Carolina General Assembly, North Carolina House Finance Committee
Digital assets, Virtual currency
HB 920 was filed as the NC Digital Asset Freedom Act. A June 2, 2026 committee substitute replaced the first edition in its entirety and changed the short and long titles to focus on virtual currency kiosk consumer protection.
