Ohio has a crypto kiosk scam problem, ELDER Act can stop it

A 73-year-old woman in Delhi Township received a pop-up on her laptop saying the device had been hacked. She called what she believed was a Microsoft support number. The person on the phone told her she needed to move money to fix the problem. Over multiple transactions, she sent $41,750 through a Bitcoin ATM.

She was fortunate in one respect: Ohio investigators moved quickly and recovered more than $35,000. Most victims of crypto kiosk scams are not so lucky.

This was not a failed investment.

The woman was not trading cryptocurrency. She was manipulated into using a machine that allowed a criminal to convert fear into Bitcoin and move the money away.

Ohio has plenty of company. FBI data show 448 Ohio complaints involving cryptocurrency kiosks in 2025 and nearly $12 million in adjusted losses. Across the country, kiosk-related complaints exceeded 13,400 and reported losses topped $388 million. More than half involved people over 50.

The scams do not require technical sophistication from the victim. In fact, that is part of the problem. A fake Microsoft employee, bank official, sheriff’s deputy, or government agent tells someone that an account has been compromised or an arrest is imminent. The caller creates panic, demands secrecy, and then directs the victim to a nearby kiosk. The machine does the rest.

Ohio lawmakers have a chance to put guardrails around that process.

House Bill 648, known as the ELDER Act, would establish statewide standards for digital asset kiosks and require operators to register as money transmitters. The bipartisan concern behind the measure is straightforward: these machines have become a recurring tool in scams that disproportionately hurt older Ohioans.

When the bill was introduced, its sponsors said the goal was to create clear, uniform standards to address fraud, predatory practices, and misuse involving crypto kiosks, particularly among older and vulnerable Ohioans.

That is exactly the right frame. Ohio does not have to decide whether cryptocurrency itself is good or bad in order to decide that a kiosk sitting in a convenience store should not function like an unguarded exit ramp for someone’s life savings.

The strongest rules should include meaningful daily transaction limits, especially for first-time customers; prominent warnings; live customer service; identity verification; fraud detection; and a process that gives a newly targeted victim a chance to stop or unwind a transaction before the money disappears.

There is a reason scammers push victims toward payment methods that are fast and difficult to reverse. Friction is their enemy. A bank employee asking one extra question can stop a scam. A cooling-off period can stop a scam. A transaction cap can turn a $40,000 catastrophe into a much smaller loss while family or law enforcement has time to intervene.

The Delhi Township case also shows why speed matters after the fact. Investigators recovered most of the victim’s money because authorities were notified quickly. Rules should make that kind of intervention easier, not depend on luck.

No law will stop criminals from making fake tech-support calls.

But Ohio can make the last step harder.

If a stranger tells a 73-year-old woman to feed $40,000 into a Bitcoin ATM, the system should create more obstacles than a few taps on a screen.

Ohio should also make sure the rules are uniform.

A customer should not have stronger protection because one city or one kiosk company voluntarily decided to do more. The protections should travel with the consumer, from Cleveland to Cincinnati to a small-town gas station where a machine may be sitting near the lottery tickets and cash register.

The ELDER Act gives lawmakers a chance to put those obstacles in place. They should take it.

Mr. Fay, an attorney, of Brooklyn, N.Y., is executive director of Crypto Watchdog, a consumer education and advocacy group focused on stronger protections in cryptocurrency markets.