The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act became law on July 17, 2025,¹ marking the first comprehensive federal framework governing cryptocurrency in the United States. The law marks a defining moment in U.S. financial regulation, offering long-awaited clarity for stablecoins while creating new layers of accountability for those who issue, trade or rely on them.

For lawyers and market participants, the law's passage represents more than a compliance milestone. It signals a period of adjustment, interpretation and new forms of legal risk within an increasingly digital financial system.

Understanding the Shift

Stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a stable value, typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. They have grown rapidly in use, facilitating crypto trading, cross-border payments and dollar access in emerging markets. Yet their rise has also revealed structural vulnerabilities, from opaque reserves to algorithmic collapses, most notably the 2022 TerraUSD failure.²

Since the passage of the GENIUS Act, its effects on the digital asset market have been notable. Global crypto assets briefly surpassed $4 trillion³ following the enactment, a development that observers partly attribute to increased confidence in clearer regulatory standards for stablecoins. The act has also drawn renewed attention from established financial institutions,⁴ with several exploring participation in the stablecoin ecosystem under the new framework.⁵ Market analysts anticipate that this could broaden the number of issuers, introducing greater competition in a space currently dominated by Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC). At the same time, the act's consumer protection and financial integrity measures, including reserve-backing requirements, regular audits and enhanced anti–money laundering (AML) obligations, aim to mitigate fraud and compliance risks. Taken together, these provisions are expected to foster a more transparent and stable regulatory environment, laying the groundwork for more measured growth within the stablecoin sector.

The GENIUS Act aims to bring order to this evolving sector. It defines a "payment stablecoin" as a token redeemable at a fixed value and used for payments or settlements. It sets federal standards for who can issue these instruments, how reserves must be managed and what disclosures and audits are required.

While the law provides long-sought regulatory certainty, it also introduces obligations that will test relationships among issuers, custodians, banks and technology providers. That testing ground, where compliance meets commercial reality, is where future disputes are most likely to emerge.

Key Provisions and Legal Context

The GENIUS Act establishes a comprehensive framework with several cornerstone requirements:

• One-to-one reserve backing: Issuers must hold high-quality, liquid assets equivalent to their outstanding stablecoins.
• Permitted issuers: Only regulated entities, such as OCC-chartered non-bank issuers, subsidiaries of insured depository institutions or approved state entities, are allowed to issue payment stablecoins.
• Transparency and audits: Monthly public attestations and annual independent audits are required to verify reserve assets.
• AML and sanctions compliance: Issuers are considered financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, subjecting them to Know Your Customer (KYC) and transaction monitoring standards.
• Legal clarity: Compliant stablecoins are explicitly exempted from classification as securities, resolving years of uncertainty under SEC oversight.

Together, these provisions transform stablecoins from experimental tools into regulated financial products. Yet they also create complex intersections of public and private law, where compliance failures could trigger both regulatory actions and contractual disputes.

Opportunities and Pressure Points

For financial institutions, payment processors and technology providers, the act presents both opportunity and risk. It establishes not only a more transparent framework for innovation, but also a higher standard of care.

Issuers and their service partners will need to make sure that contracts, audits and data-sharing arrangements align with new regulatory definitions. Questions about reserve custody, interest allocation and the meaning of "permitted use" may quickly become sources of contention. Wallet providers and payment platforms that connect to these systems may face scrutiny if they indirectly touch customer assets or transaction flows.

Even well-intentioned compliance efforts can lead to tension. A delayed redemption, a misinterpreted audit result or inconsistent reserve disclosures could spark mass claims or class actions, echoing prior disputes in the digital asset space. The GENIUS Act's framework does not eliminate such risks; it merely formalizes the rules of engagement.

A New Field for Dispute Resolution

As with past waves of financial innovation, regulation tends to clarify responsibilities and, in doing so, clarify fault lines. The GENIUS Act will likely generate disputes in three primary areas:

• Consumer and mass claims over redemption rights, disclosure accuracy or perceived misrepresentation of reserve quality
• Commercial and contractual disputes between issuers, custodians and auditors as compliance duties and liabilities are tested
• Custody and banking conflicts concerning who controls, invests or accesses reserve assets under insolvency or stress scenarios

Because these relationships are increasingly cross-border and technology-driven, early negotiation and mediation will be critical. The act's complexity lends itself to disputes where technical understanding and financial literacy are as crucial as legal skill, an area where neutrals experienced in fintech, banking and regulatory transitions can add particular value.

This complexity has led to growing interest in dispute resolution mechanisms tailored to blockchain, smart contracts, and digital assets.

Preventing Conflict Before It Escalates

The enactment of the GENIUS Act creates a natural inflection point for attorneys and clients to review how digital-asset relationships are structured. Now is the time to:

• Review contracts and service agreements to verify that compliance obligations, audit rights and indemnification clauses are aligned with the act's requirements.
• Establish clear governance frameworks for decision-making, documentation and oversight of reserve management.
• Develop rapid-response protocols for handling potential redemption delays, cybersecurity incidents or enforcement inquiries.

These steps not only help mitigate exposure, but also serve as a strong foundation for dispute prevention and early resolution. In a space where technology, finance and regulation intersect, clarity in documentation and communication is often the best form of defense.

A Broader Regulatory Moment

The GENIUS Act brings the U.S. closer to alignment with the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA),⁶ demonstrating a global trend toward convergence in digital-asset oversight. That trend accelerated further as a consortium of major European banks announced plans to launch a euro-denominated stablecoin under the EU’s MiCA framework, signaling growing institutional participation in regulated digital-asset markets.⁷

The act also directs the U.S. Treasury to study algorithmic stablecoins, suggesting a willingness to engage innovation rather than suppress it.

This balanced approach, encouraging progress while enforcing accountability, reflects a maturing regulatory philosophy. Experience with earlier regulatory transitions, from Dodd-Frank to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), shows that the first few years of implementation often shape how the law functions in practice. Early enforcement actions and private disputes help define boundaries long before appellate courts weigh in. The GENIUS Act is likely to follow a similar path, with contractual disagreements, audit challenges and cross-border interpretations testing its limits in real time. For practitioners, it underscores a broader truth: As the financial system evolves, so must the methods for resolving disputes within it.

Interpreting the Early Disputes Ahead

As new regulatory frameworks are established, early disputes often arise from differing interpretations rather than deliberate misconduct. The initial cases under the GENIUS Act are likely to focus on the accuracy of reserve disclosure, the timing of redemption or the division of liability between issuers and custodians.

Similar to what occurred under prior reforms in banking and data protection, the first enforcement and private claims will help define the practical meaning of compliance. How these disputes are resolved, through litigation, negotiated settlements or alternative mechanisms, will shape expectations and inform future guidance.

For practitioners, the key is to closely monitor these early test cases. They will reveal how the law balances innovation with accountability, as well as where gaps persist between regulatory intent and operational reality.

An Evolving Legal Landscape

For the legal community, attention now shifts from speculation to implementation, supporting efforts toward compliance, anticipating areas of friction and interpreting how this new framework operates in practice.

The GENIUS Act transforms stablecoins from a market experiment into a regulated financial product. Its long-term legacy will depend on not only the clarity of its rules, but also how effectively the legal system, financial institutions and counsel navigate the gray areas between innovation and regulation. 

-----------

Peter Kamminga, Ph.D., is a mediator and arbitrator at JAMS with experience in complex commercial, class action and financial regulatory matters. His practice includes disputes involving digital assets, technology and evolving global compliance regimes.

Disclaimer: The content is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. If you require legal or professional advice, please contact an attorney.

Sources:

¹ “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or the GENIUS Act,” Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, July 10, 2025;

https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025-07-10_--_one-pager_genius_final.pdf

² “Terraform and Kwon to Pay $4.5 Billion Following Fraud Verdict,” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, June 13, 2024;

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-73

³ “Crypto Market Caps Break $4?Trillion Barrier,” Yahoo Finance, July 18, 2025;

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/crypto-market-caps-break-4-143359617.html

⁴ “Wall Street's plans for stablecoin, from Goldman to JPMorgan,” Business Insider, July 19, 2025;

https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-banks-stablecoin-goldman-jpmorgan-citi-bofa-morgan-stanley-2025-7?op=1

⁵ “Banks Rush Into $264 Billion Stablecoin Market After Trump Signs New Law,” CoinCentral, July 25, 2025;

https://coincentral.com/banks-rush-into-264-billion-stablecoin-market-after-trump-signs-new-law/

⁶ “Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937”;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj

⁷ “European banks led by BNP, ING push ahead on euro stablecoin plan,” Reuters, December 2, 2025;

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/group-european-banks-announce-euro-stablecoin-plans-2025-12-02/