Legislation

Subscribe to Legislation via RSS

As we highlighted in our recent Practical Law Practice Note, Smart Contracts: Best Practices, various state lawmakers are paving the way for widespread use of blockchains and smart contracts in commerce. For example, on January 1, 2020, the Illinois Blockchain Technology Act (BTA) went into effect, resolving some legal uncertainties around the legal status of blockchains and smart contracts in Illinois.

“Smart Contracts,” as defined by the BTA, are contracts stored as electronic records which are verified by the use of a blockchain. Smart Contracts can be deployed in a variety of legal and non-legal contexts, ranging from car rentals to supply chain management. However, one question that has loomed over smart contracts is how courts will review their enforceability, given that smart contracts may not resemble typical, written agreements. Some legislatures, and now Illinois, have sought to address this issue head-on, rather than waiting for courts to decide.

The BTA provides four permitted uses for blockchain and smart contracts:

  1. A smart contract, record, or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because a blockchain was used to create, store, or verify the smart contract, record, or signature.
  2. In a proceeding, evidence of a smart contract, record, or signature must not be excluded solely because a blockchain was used to create, store, or verify the smart contract, record, or signature.
  3. If a law requires a record to be in writing, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the record satisfies the law.
  4. If a law requires a signature, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the signature or verifies the intent of a person to provide the signature satisfies the law.

In effect, these permitted uses prevent a court from denying smart contracts contractual or evidentiary effect solely by virtue of their status as a smart contract or electronic record stored on a blockchain, though courts will still have to review on a case by case basis. Tennessee and Arizona, among other states, passed similar legislation regarding contractual enforceability of smart contracts. Vermont passed a similar law handling the evidentiary effect of digital records such as smart contracts. Wyoming has also been active in adopting regulations related to digital assets, smart contracts, and blockchains.

Proskauer authored an in-depth Practice Note published by Practical Law, which details best practices for the use of smart contracts on blockchains. It discusses functional and legal considerations for both standalone smart contracts and smart contracts used in conjunction with traditional written contracts (hybrid smart contracts) and explores the…

Utah’s governor recently signed into law H.B. 378, which created a sandbox program for companies providing “innovative financial products or services” in the state. The program, run by Utah’s Department of Commerce, requires companies to apply and meet certain requirements in order to participate in the sandbox. Importantly, H.B.…

We are happy to report that our recent in-depth Practice Note on Blockchain as applied to Supply Chain Management was selected to appear as the cover story for the June/July issue of Practical Law – The Journal. Read the full text here.

Following up on their recent introduction of the Token Taxonomy Act, Representatives Darren Soto (D-FL) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) have teamed up again to introduce a new slate of bipartisan bills related to virtual currency. The two new bills, H.R. 922 and H.R. 923, were introduced on January 30, 2019 and are cosponsored by Representatives Ted Budd (R-NC) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).

On December 20, 2018, a bipartisan pair of Congressmen, Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Darren Soto (D-FL), introduced bill H.R. 7356 to enact the Token Taxonomy Act (the “Act”). The Act proposes several amendments to federal securities and tax laws that are intended to clarify how cryptoassets should be treated thereunder. Below, we discuss the key provisions of the Act and their potential implications for cryptoasset market participants. Emphasis is placed on “potential” because, as we will discuss, the Act will likely require certain revisions, as well as substantial political support, before becoming effective law.

States have long been “laboratories of democracy” where policymakers can try out certain innovative policies on a local or regional level that could eventually, if successful, become national programs. On the tech side, some states have sought to establish themselves as laboratories of blockchain. For example, this past week Vermont announced that it will work with vendors to launch a pilot program permitting new captive insurance companies to register with the Vermont Secretary of State using blockchain.

Across the country, Wyoming has been especially active in this area and reportedly desires to be a corporate-friendly “Delaware of the West” [subscription required] as well as a haven for blockchain and fintech business activity. To that end, the Wyoming legislature has advanced several blockchain-related bills through committee since the new year (following an active 2018, which saw the state pass a number of regulatory measures related to blockchain and digital assets).

This past summer, Ohio adopted legislation (SB220) that primarily provides for a legal safe harbor from certain data-breach related tort claims to covered entities that implement a specified cybersecurity program that “reasonably conforms” to a recognized cybersecurity framework for the protection of personal information and “restricted information” or comply with certain industry-specific federal privacy laws. This legislation is intended incentivize businesses to adopt heightened levels of cybersecurity through voluntary action.

Beyond cybersecurity, SB220 also includes language amending Ohio’s version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) to incentivize blockchain investment and innovation in the state by allowing transactions recorded on the blockchain to be recognized under it. Ohio’s UETA generally stipulates that records or signatures may not be denied legal effect solely because they are in electronic form and that a contract may not be denied legal effect because an electronic record was used in its formation (a discussion of the extent to which any provision of Ohio’s UETA is preempted by the Federal E-Sign Act (15 U.S.C. § 7001) is beyond the scope of this post). In pertinent part, SB220 amends the definition of “electronic record” under the UETA to provide that “a record or contract that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic record.” It also amends the definition of “electronic signature” to clarify that a signature that is “secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic signature.” While one could argue that signatures secured using blockchain are already presumably valid under the UETA, such a law expressly takes up this issue and signals the state’s pro-blockchain stance.