Stablecoin Legal Guide Raises Licensing Questions After GENIUS Act

Whether businesses still need money transmitter licenses after the GENIUS Act is the focus of a legal commentary published by Bitcoin.com News. The article, attributed to Michael Handelsman for Kelman.Law, presents the question as the third installment of a practical guide for businesses navigating the stablecoin landscape.

The piece appears within Law and Ledger, a crypto legal news segment that the publication describes as brought to readers by Kelman Law. The introductory material identifies Kelman Law as a law firm focused on digital asset commerce and explicitly labels the contribution an opinion editorial, distinguishing it from a reported regulatory announcement.

Its title, “Stablecoins After the GENIUS Act, Part 3: Do You Still Need Money Transmitter Licenses?”, places licensing obligations at the center of the discussion. The broader series is titled “Stablecoins After the GENIUS Act: A Practical Legal Guide for Businesses,” framing the installment around operational legal questions rather than stablecoin prices or investment performance.

The supplied excerpt, however, ends before the substantive discussion of the GENIUS Act begins. It therefore does not establish Handelsman’s conclusion about when a money transmitter license is required, which businesses might qualify for different treatment, or what conditions could affect that analysis. No definitive licensing answer can be drawn from the introductory text alone.

For business readers, the distinction between identifying a compliance question and answering it is important. A headline asking whether licenses remain necessary does not itself establish that an obligation has ended, continued unchanged or been replaced. The available material supports describing the issue under examination, but not announcing a change in licensing requirements.

The excerpt also does not identify a particular company, licensing application, enforcement action or regulatory decision as the basis for the article. Its stated purpose is a practical legal guide, and the material provided introduces commentary rather than documenting a specific business outcome. That limits how directly its premise can be applied to an individual company’s circumstances.

Attribution is especially relevant because the contribution comes from a law firm and is presented as opinion. Any conclusions in the complete installment would need to be understood as the author’s legal analysis, not automatically as an official interpretation from a regulator. The supplied introduction contains no regulator statement or statutory passage against which to assess such conclusions.

The next step for readers seeking a substantive answer is the complete installment and the legal authorities underlying its analysis. Until those details are available, the supported takeaway is narrower: the series is examining money transmitter licensing after the GENIUS Act, while the supplied excerpt leaves the answer unresolved.