Bills opposing the use of central bank digital currency (CBDC) as money have been filed in Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The bills would exclude a CBDC from the definition of money, potentially creating significant barriers to a CBDC in the United States.

On January 12, State Senator Frank Niceley introduced a bill in the Tennessee Senate. Money is an authorized medium of exchange under Tennessee’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). However, his proposed bill would add the phrase “does not include any central bank digital currency” to the definition.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a comprehensive set of uniform laws that regulate business dealings in the US. It offers a uniform framework for transactions and business dealings between various states.

On January 4, Representative Tyler Clancy introduced House Bill 164 in the Utah House of Representatives. The proposed bill defines central bank digital currency as a digital form of money that can be directly verified or accessed by government bodies such as the United States Federal Reserve, foreign governments, central banks, and reserve systems.

According to the proposed Utah CBDC bill, “a central bank digital currency is not specie legal tender and is not legal tender in the state,” CBDC is essentially excluded from the definition of money under the Utah Specie Legal Tender Act and the UCC of the state.

On November 30, 2023, state Senator Shane Martin of South Carolina filed Senate Bill 861. Money is defined by South Carolina’s UCC as an approved medium of exchange, just like it is in Tennessee. Nevertheless, the definition would be expanded to include the phrase “does not include any central bank digital currency” by the proposed bill S861.

On January 9, the Senate Committee on Commerce and Energy’s chair was asked by the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation to introduce Senate Bill 58. The act amends the state’s UCC to clarify that money “does not include any central bank digital currency.”