The Massachusetts Senate voted Thursday to prohibit crypto ATMs. It was attached to an omnibus economic development bill.
The action comes as FBI figures show kiosk-scam losses statewide last year totaled ~$7 million. Consumer advocates and elderly residents say the unregulated machines have become a cash pipeline for scammers.
Crypto ATM scams walk victims to the kiosk
The machines look just like normal cash dispensers. Hundreds sit inside convenience stores, pharmacies and liquor stores across the state.
Norfolk County Sheriff Patrick McDermott said it usually starts with a call or text, and then the victim is pressured into moving savings into Bitcoin. Cash goes into the machine, a QR code from the caller gets scanned, and the deposit converts and routes to an anonymous wallet in seconds. Once the cash is in there, it’s gone for good.
The FBI says it got 296 complaints about kiosk scams in Massachusetts in 2025, causing $6,834,561 in damage. That’s about $19,000 in reported losses per day spread out. That brought the bureau’s national total to $389 million stolen in that way over the past year.
AARP Massachusetts led the charge for the crackdown. “A ban on crypto ATMs is now the most effective way to stop the ongoing damage,” state director Jen Benson said in a statement Thursday.
Massachusetts leaves crypto ATMs unregulated
Massachusetts does not have written rules for crypto kiosks. This prompted sheriffs and advocacy groups to push lawmakers to at least temporarily shut them down. Massachusetts is the only New England state that leaves these machines unregulated.
Vermont, Minnesota, Indiana and Tennessee banned the machines outright, and 28 other states restrict their use in some way.
The absence of local guardrails has lured operators in, says McDermott. He added that pulling the machines is the only lever available until real regulation exists.
But the vote on Thursday doesn’t change anything. The ban was added to the Senate’s broad economic development bill as an amendment. The bill was approved by the chamber late Thursday night.
A comparable language has already been looked at by the House twice, once in its version of the bill and once in an earlier budget proposal. It fell both times. The ban’s fate depends on how well the two houses can work together to pass their bills.
