Tag: Regulation & Policy

AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron has publicly criticized Robinhood for issuing “Stock Tokens” that track AMC’s share price without the company’s involvement or approval. According to Adam Aron, AMC has no connection to these tokens, does not condone them, and is investigating their legality.

Robinhood’s documentation states these tokens are debt securities offering economic exposure to a share price without conferring rights to the underlying security or the issuing company. The tokens are not registered under U.S. securities laws and are not offered to U.S. persons. However, the base prospectus for the tokens received approval from Liechtenstein’s Financial Market Authority.

AMC intends to instruct outside securities counsel to investigate the legality of these offerings, as stated by Adam Aron. This action highlights concerns regarding the regulatory status of tokenized securities.

Robinhood’s Stock Tokens are issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. The company’s issuer page indicates that the Jersey entity “is not regulated,” and that the consents it holds do not constitute supervision or endorsement. This structure raises questions about oversight and investor protection.

This is not the first instance of Robinhood issuing tokens tracking public companies. Last year, the platform airdropped tokens tracking OpenAI and SpaceX to European users. In response to those offerings, OpenAI said it had not partnered with Robinhood and did not endorse the product. Similarly, Anthropic and OpenAI warned this year that unauthorized vehicles selling exposure to their shares could leave buyers with nothing.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has previously cautioned that blockchains do not transform the nature of the underlying asset, suggesting that regulatory frameworks for traditional securities may still apply. The current situation with AMC’s stock tokens underscores the ongoing tension between financial innovation and regulatory compliance.

Robinhood’s program reportedly covers more than 190 companies and is further restricted in Canada, the U.K., and Switzerland. The disclosures use the term ‘U.S. persons’ as defined in Regulation S.

The legality of Robinhood’s stock tokens remains uncertain. It is also unclear whether Robinhood will face regulatory action, and the extent to which investors understand the rights associated with these Stock Tokens is also a point of uncertainty. AMC’s investigation into the legality of the tokens is ongoing.

Why This Matters

The materials describe a narrow update: Adam Aron, CEO of AMC Entertainment, expressed strong disapproval of Robinhood’s issuance of ‘Stock Tokens’ that track AMC’s share price. The legality of Robinhood’s stock tokens.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: Robinhood’s program covers more than 190 companies.

Utah Leads the Charge in Digital Rights Battle with New VPN Age Verification Law

Utah has broken new ground in the ongoing digital rights debate, becoming the first state to directly address the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in age verification processes. The new legislation mandates that websites hosting adult content must verify the ages of visitors, even when VPNs are employed to mask their location. This places the onus on website operators to determine if users are physically within the state.

SB 73 Targets VPN Use for Age Verification

Utah’s Senate Bill 73 (SB 73) requires commercial websites that “knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material harmful to minors” to verify the ages of Utah-based visitors. This applies when such material constitutes more than one-third of their content, irrespective of whether visitors use VPNs or proxy servers to conceal their location.

The bill explicitly states, “A commercial entity that operates a website that contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors may not facilitate or encourage the use of a virtual private network, proxy server, or other means to circumvent age verification requirements.”

Under the new law, individuals physically present in Utah are considered Utah users, regardless of their use of VPNs, proxy servers, or other location-disguising tools. VPNs function by routing internet traffic through remote servers, thereby obscuring the IP address that a website would typically identify.

Restrictions on Bypassing Age Checks

The legislation also prohibits website operators from assisting users in bypassing age verification measures. This includes providing instructions on how to access websites via VPNs or evade geographic restrictions.

A tweet from Nym, a privacy company, highlighted a specific provision: “Utah’s SB 73 bans websites from publishing instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass age verification. Publishing information about how VPNs work is now illegal in Utah if it relates to age verification. The law restricts speech about a privacy tool. That is a First…”

Penalties and Compliance

The Division of Consumer Protection is empowered to impose administrative fines of up to $2,500 per violation. Courts can levy civil penalties of a similar amount, in addition to other potential remedies.

The statute also mandates that verification providers must not retain identifying information after granting access. Operators who utilize verification methods that adhere to standards set by the division are considered compliant with the age-verification requirements.

Privacy Advocates Raise Concerns

Privacy company Nym has voiced concerns on X, arguing that SB 73’s prohibition on covered websites offering VPN instructions to circumvent age checks infringes upon speech related to privacy tools. “The law restricts speech about a privacy tool,” the company stated. “That is a First Amendment question the courts have not answered yet.”

Global Trend of VPN Scrutiny

SB 73 represents the latest move by regulators to scrutinize VPNs, both for enforcing platform bans and for preventing users from circumventing age verification.

In September 2024, Brazilian authorities initiated investigations into users suspected of employing VPNs to bypass the country’s temporary ban on X, with potential fines reaching approximately $9,000 per day.

In July 2025, demand for VPNs in the UK surged by over 6,000% following the implementation of age verification measures. Harry Halpin, CEO and co-founder of Nym, attributed this increase to the UK’s “ill-thought-out Online Safety Bill.” Nym, which operates a decentralized VPN service, observed a 12% rise in its NYM token value during this surge, a day after launching its iOS application.

Earlier, in February, France considered restricting minors’ use of VPNs to bypass age controls but ultimately ruled out an outright ban.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is urging a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) that challenges the agency’s regulatory stance on crypto perpetual futures. The CFTC argues that CME has failed to demonstrate financial harm or increased competition resulting from the agency’s decision.

The core of CME’s challenge lies in the CFTC’s classification of Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract as a future. CME contends that contracts without a defined expiration or delivery date should be classified as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and that the CFTC’s approval process was improper. However, the CFTC asserts that CME has not shown it has suffered financial injury or is likely to imminently face such harm.

In its filing on Wednesday, attorneys for the CFTC, including those for Chairman Michael S. Selig, characterized CME’s lawsuit as “much ado about nothing.” The regulator argued that CME has not alleged it is prevented from listing similar futures contracts itself, nor that the Commission lacks the authority to approve such listings. The CFTC further noted that public comments from CME executives suggest customers have not requested perpetual futures and that these contracts are not substitutes for CME’s existing hedging products.

To counter CME’s claims of competitive injury, the CFTC presented trading volume data, indicating that August trading volume for certain futures surpassed May volume. The regulator stated that a ruling in favor of CME would not address the alleged harm.

Perpetual futures, or perps, enable traders to maintain leveraged long or short positions indefinitely. Funding payments between traders help align contract prices with the underlying spot market. Kalshi and Polymarket had signaled plans to expand into perpetual futures in April. The CFTC’s May order allows registered designated contract markets to list similarly structured perpetual futures based on Bitcoin and other digital commodities.

CME announced its planned legal challenge on June 18. Since then, Kalshi has filed to certify contracts tied to 12 altcoins and, in August, sought to list a perpetual future tracking copper prices. The CFTC’s May order provides a regulatory path for these types of contracts.

It remains uncertain whether the court will accept the CFTC’s interpretation of trading volume data or its conclusion regarding CME’s alleged financial injury. The court has not yet ruled on the CFTC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Why This Matters

The materials describe a narrow update: The CFTC has requested a federal judge dismiss a lawsuit filed by CME. The court has not assessed the CFTC’s conclusion regarding trading volume data.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: Perpetual futures, or perps, let traders maintain leveraged long or short positions indefinitely.

FBI Seizes Hamas Cryptocurrency Infrastructure

The FBI has seized approximately $560,000 in cryptocurrency and taken control of online infrastructure allegedly used by Hamas to solicit donations, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

According to the Justice Department, the funds were intended for Hamas’ military wing, the Al Qassam Brigades. Investigators traced and confiscated the cryptocurrency under three warrants issued on March 25, June 25, and October 10, 2025.

“Hamas relied on cryptocurrency and online platforms to solicit funds from donors around the world,” said Assistant Director of the FBI’s Cyber Division Brett Leatherman in a statement. “The FBI will continue to use its authorities to intercept illicit funds and prevent terrorist organizations from exploiting digital networks to finance their operations.”

Court filings allege that an encrypted group chat directed supporters to AlQassam.ps, where rotating wallet addresses solicited donations.

While the announcement did not specify the cryptocurrencies involved, accompanying court filings identified Bitcoin, Ethereum, Wrapped Ethereum, Tether, and Tron across 18 Tether-controlled addresses and three Binance accounts allegedly linked to financing a foreign terrorist organization.

This latest action is part of ongoing efforts by authorities to disrupt Hamas-linked cryptocurrency fundraising. In 2023, Israeli police froze Hamas-linked Binance accounts. In a separate review in 2024, Binance stated it had frozen approximately 14% of over 1,500 wallets flagged by Israel.

In March 2025, a U.S. warrant led to the seizure of $201,400 in cryptocurrency from addresses that authorities said had received more than $1.5 million since October 2024. In related actions, the FBI seized the fundraising site’s domains and servers, enabling agents to intercept donations and gather information on thousands of individuals who had contacted Hamas regarding contributions.

Federal prosecutors framed the operation as a warning that neither online networks nor cryptocurrency can shield Hamas’ fundraising activities from law enforcement.

“A message to Hamas: We will stop your fundraising for terror,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro stated. “Your networks are not secure, your crypto is vulnerable, and we will not stop until your ability to wage war is defeated.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is navigating a complex landscape of industry feedback following its request for comments on novel exchange-traded products (ETPs). The deadline for submissions on Monday has revealed a wide spectrum of opinions from crypto firms, asset managers, and consumer advocates, highlighting deep divisions on how to regulate emerging financial instruments and underscoring the central tension between fostering innovation and ensuring investor protection.

The SEC issued its request for comment in June, seeking input on whether existing rules adequately protect investors and if registration procedures need to adapt for new types of ETPs that extend beyond traditional exchange-traded funds (ETFs). These novel products can include those involving crypto assets, private assets, event contracts, and leveraged strategies.

Calls for Innovation and Regulatory Parity

Various industry participants are advocating for regulatory parity and innovation. The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI), for instance, urged the SEC to extend regulatory efficiencies available to ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to other ETPs. According to CCI, this would promote regulatory parity, foster innovation, and expand investor choice. CCI also advised against updating the definition of an investment company, suggesting it could create uncertainty without clear investor benefits.

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) emphasized that novel ETPs should not be treated as a single category, as they present different market structure, valuation, liquidity, and investor protection considerations. A16z stated that crypto ETPs already operate under established exchange listing standards and disclosure requirements, differentiating them from products holding illiquid private assets or employing less-tested strategies. The firm also called for better coordination between fund registration and exchange listing reviews, proposing standardized schedules and shorter review periods for certain products.

Chainalysis recommended that instead of restricting listing standards for blockchain-based novel ETPs, the SEC should clarify through guidance that exchanges listing such products employ monitoring systems meeting defined standards. Chainalysis suggested that public blockchains could support real-time surveillance, independently verifiable portfolio data, and machine-readable disclosures, with exchanges documenting their analytical deployment and coverage through periodic reporting.

Kalshi, which offers event contracts that pay a fixed amount based on a specified outcome, argued that when investors seek pooled exposure to these contracts, a registered fund is an appropriate vehicle. Kalshi acknowledged that some event contracts may have less market depth than conventional futures but stated these differences do not warrant categorical exclusion. The firm believes existing fund rules, tailored disclosures, and coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) could address risks related to valuation, liquidity, leverage, and market surveillance.

Investor Protection Concerns

Consumer advocates like Public Citizen expressed significant concerns. Public Citizen warned that event-contract ETFs would place gambling-like products within a vehicle that retail investors associate with long-term investing. The organization noted that retail investors rely on ETFs as a familiar and trustworthy format, expecting them to represent investments tied to productive economic activity, and may not understand that these products do not compound or behave like diversified index funds.

Procedural Considerations

Other entities also weighed in on procedural matters. Grayscale opposed new portfolio restrictions for established digital-asset products and supported optional confidential consultations before public filings. Conversely, Charles Schwab opposed a fully confidential process, proposing that any resulting filing be made public for at least 75 days before taking effect.

The SEC faces the challenge of synthesizing these divergent industry perspectives into a coherent regulatory framework. Uncertainty remains regarding whether existing rules adequately protect investors in novel ETPs, whether registration procedures should change, and how to balance the industry’s push for innovation with the imperative of investor protection. The historical context of the first U.S. Bitcoin futures ETF trading in October 2021 and the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 provides a backdrop for this evolving regulatory discussion.

Why This Matters

The materials describe a narrow update: Various entities, including crypto firms, asset managers, and consumer advocates, responded to the SEC’s request for comment on regulating new types of exchange-traded products (ETPs) that go beyond traditional ETFs, such as those involving crypto, private assets, event contracts, and leveraged strategies. Whether existing SEC rules adequately protect investors in novel ETPs.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: The SEC issued the request for comment in June, asking whether existing rules adequately protect investors and whether registration procedures should change to accommodate new products.

Norway Considers Stricter Smart Glasses Rules, Potential Public Facial Recognition Ban

Norway is preparing to implement tighter regulations on smart glasses and is exploring a ban on facial recognition technology in public spaces, according to Digitalisation Minister Karianne Tung. The announcement came on August 25.

Tung stated that artificial intelligence is increasingly being integrated with the cameras and microphones found in smart glasses, earbuds, and caps. She emphasized Norway’s commitment to preventing such devices from being used for surveillance of individuals in public areas.

To address these concerns, Tung announced the formation of an expert group that will advise the government on safeguarding consumers from the evolving technology. In the interim, she urged both public and private organizations to establish their own internal guidelines while new legislation is being developed. No specific timeline for these measures has been provided.

Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, head of digital policy at the Norwegian Consumer Council, expressed support for the government’s initiative. However, he suggested that retailers should suspend sales of smart glasses until the legal framework is finalized.

Myrstad highlighted that Meta’s facial recognition technology is already developed and awaiting deployment. He cautioned that a ban on this feature would not prevent users from covertly recording individuals, underscoring the “enormous” potential for misuse.

An investigation by ABC News in January revealed instances where women were secretly filmed using Ray-Ban Meta glasses after being approached in public, with the footage subsequently shared on TikTok. In February, Swedish newspapers reported that Nairobi-based contractors tasked with training Meta’s AI had reviewed recordings of people undressing, using restrooms, and engaging in sexual activity.

In April, the ACLU and 75 other organizations called on Meta to discontinue facial recognition in its smart glasses, deeming it a boundary society should not cross. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation in May, and Meta released a patch in July after users discovered methods to circumvent the indicator light signaling recording.

Meta has since patented eyewear capable of recognizing faces and logging user activities. Meanwhile, the privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo reported that its intentionally camera-free “Normal F*ing Sunglasses” sold out in less than a week.

Comic Con organizer Monopoly Events and the DEF CON security conference have both prohibited the use of smart glasses at their venues. In July, Police Scotland initiated an investigation into a TikTok user accused of filming people with such a device.

Norway would be among the pioneering nations to enact specific legislation for these types of devices. Tung’s ministry has not yet indicated when the expert group will convene or when a legislative bill might be introduced.