Several U.S. states, including Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee, have introduced bills challenging the classification of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as currency. These bills propose amending the definitions within state laws to explicitly exclude CBDCs from being considered currency, potentially posing hurdles to the development of CBDCs in the country.
In Tennessee, State Sen. Frank Niceley presented a bill on January 12, seeking to modify the definition of currency under the Tennessee Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by adding the phrase "excluding any central bank digital currency."
Utah's House Bill 164, introduced by Rep. Tyler Clancy on January 4, outlines a central bank digital currency as a system where digital forms of currency issued by government entities are directly accessed or verified. The bill aims to clarify that CBDCs are not physical legal tender and are not considered legal tender in the state.
South Carolina Senator Shane Martin filed Senate Bill 861 on November 30, 2023, proposing a similar amendment to the state's UCC definition of currency by including the phrase "excluding any central bank digital currency."
In South Dakota, Senate Bill 58 was introduced on January 9, specifying that currency, as defined in the state's UCC, "does not include any central bank digital currency."
Florida has already enacted similar legislation, with Governor Ron DeSantis signing a bill that restricts the use of CBDCs in the state. The Florida law also prohibits the use of CBDCs issued by foreign governments and encourages other states to implement comparable bans through their commercial codes.
