The Minnesota Digital Trust Act
Model statute, draft v1.6, February 2026. Drafted by Alex Galle-From.
A model act: not introduced in any legislature. Its section numbers (§§ 325M.01–.06) are placeholders that collide with existing Minnesota Statutes chapter 325M; renumbering is deferred to the next draft.
The Minnesota Digital Trust & Consumer Protection Act is a model statute for licensing the issuers of digital credentials and for liability when a verified claim turns out to be false. A licensed issuer holds capital against every class of credential it issues and is liable, out of that capital, when it fails to reasonably verify a factual claim that turns out to be false. The same rules apply whether the party presenting a credential is a person or a software agent.
The four documents below are the statute, an executive summary, and two drafts of what the statute leaves to rulemaking. Start with the summary. The actuarial guidance sets out the capital formula behind the bonding requirement; the administrative rules set the technical standards for registry tokenization, the Halt Command, and data classification.
Executive Summary
[Summary of draft v1.6]Section by section: definitions, duties and liability, the guaranty association, administration, and three things the Act deliberately does not do.
→ Read documentFull Statute Text
[Draft v1.6, February 2026]Sections 325M.01 through 325M.06: definitions, duties and liability, the Digital Assurance Guaranty Association, and administration.
→ Read documentActuarial Guidance
[Guidance Note 2026-01]The minimum capital formula (MCR), risk weights by credential class, the revocation factor, collateral tiers, the Seed Tier, and the liquidity buffer.
→ Read documentAdministrative Rules
[Chapter 2885]Technical standards for tokenization, Halt Command, data classification, and privacy protections.
→ Read documentWe do not need to know if an AI can feel. We need to know it can pay.