Content owners and their attorneys have been enthusiastically anticipating the use of blockchain as a mechanism for royalty accounting, recording the chain of title of intellectual property interests, and protecting, tracking and administering IP.

The enthusiasm is a little less vigorous, however, when the topic turns to the use of blockchain as a vehicle for content distribution.  Some of those discussions are still appealing to content owners and their counsel as they focus on the use of blockchain as a means of effectuating a decentralized digital rights management-type system to allow distribution of content to authorized users in a secure way. Copyright anxiety arises, however, with the recognition that the technology can also be used to facilitate the distribution of infringing content, notably in the form of anonymous transactions that are embodied in a block in a permanent and immutable manner.

On April 17, 2018, the New York Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”) launched a Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative and sent letters to thirteen cryptoasset trading platforms requesting, through a questionnaire, disclosures on their operations, internal controls, and safeguards to protect customer assets.  The questionnaire focused on six major topic areas, including: 1) Ownership and Control, 2) Basic Operation and Fees, 3) Trading Policies and Procedures, 4) Outages and Other Suspensions of Trading, 5) Internal Controls, and 6) Privacy and Money Laundering.  The OAG characterized the initiative as a mechanism to “increase transparency and accountability” on “platforms used by consumers to trade virtual or ‘crypto’ currencies like bitcoin and ether.”  Notably, the thirteen trading platforms were only given two weeks to respond to the questionnaire.

While cryptoasset exchanges already face regulatory scrutiny from the SEC, the CFTC, and certain state regulators (including other agencies within New York), among others, the OAG determined  that their mandate to protect customers/ investors and ensure the fairness of New York’s financial markets necessitated further action.  Two of the targeted trading platforms –  Coinbase and Kraken – publicized markedly different responses to the OAG’s inquiries, the content of which sheds light on how some of the industry’s key players are approaching regulation; and perhaps, how regulators should be approaching some of the industry’s key players.

Last week, former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler explained in remarks at M.I.T. that he believes the second and third most widely used virtual currencies—Ether and Ripple—may have been issued and traded in violation of securities regulations.  This comes on the heels of a crackdown on cryptocurrency-related securities by the SEC, which is particularly focused on initial coin offerings (ICOs).  For fund managers, we believe the increased regulatory pressure will be felt in some expected, and some not-so-expected, ways.

ICO enforcement is trending: The SEC’s Cyber Unit has ramped up enforcement pressure, issuing dozens of subpoenas and information requests to technology companies and advisers involved in the ICO market.  The requests have sought information about the structure for sales and pre-sales of ICOs.  This uptick in enforcement pressure isn’t surprising, especially given Chairman Clayton’s repeated warnings that participants in the ICO space are not complying with the required securities laws (for example, notably stating that he has yet to see an ICO that “doesn’t have a sufficient number of hallmarks of a security.”)  There are no signs the SEC will slow down its scrutiny of crypto-related assets.  The SEC has already indicated that it will devote significant resources to policing the ICO market. 

When a smart contract coding vulnerability resulted in the Parity wallet “freeze” that compromised over $150 million worth of user funds, we discussed the pitfalls of unsecure code in the context of cryptoassets and the extent to which software developers might be held liable to their users for losses arising…

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently sought and received a temporary restraining order (TRO) against four promoters of alleged pyramid schemes involving cryptocurrencies. The promoters were charged with violating the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

The FTC’s complaint (filed under seal…

The effective date of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is fast approaching (May 25, 2018), and its impacts are already being felt across various industries. Specifically, the conflicts between the GDPR and the technical realities of blockchains raise important legal considerations for companies seeking to implement blockchain solutions…

Last July, the Uniform Law Commission completed a uniform model state law, known as the Uniform Regulation of Virtual-Currency Businesses Act (“URVCBA” or the “Act”) (Steve Weise participated in the preparation of the Act).  Currently, state regulation in the virtual currency space is carried out under a patchwork of laws that typically do not directly contemplate virtual currency and blockchain technology. Attempting to bring clarity as to which types of entities require state licensure and also to encourage responsible innovation in this emerging area, the URVCBA provides a statutory framework for the regulation of companies engaging in “virtual-currency business activity.”  After carefully defining which activities fall under the Act’s purview, the uniform law requires covered entities to make the typical financial and business disclosures in its application, and also contains numerous user and consumer protections, including certain enforcement powers by the relevant state authority.

The mission of the Uniform Law Commission is to draft state laws on topics where standardized regulation across state lines is practical (e.g., the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”)). Gaining final approval in 2017, the Act has so far been introduced in Connecticut, Hawaii, and Nebraska.