It's... The Moment of Truth For The UK Crypto Sector

Just like "the It's man" who introduced Monty Python's Flying Circus, the UK regulation of cryptoassets has been a long time arriving but is very suddenly upon us. For existing activities to be 'grandfathered' into the regime you must apply to the Financial Conduct Authority between 30 September 2026 and 28 February 2027. Working backward, it usually takes at least 3 months to prepare an application, so you'll need to be in a position to start that process in June. Yet the FCA has only just begun consulting on its "Perimeter Guidance" on where the boundary of the new regulatory regime lies. Comments are invited by 3 June 2026 with a view to the FCA finalising its interpretation "in September"... Below's a brief summary of the consultation for information purposes. If you need advice, please get in touch via Keystone.  Of course, this follows a similar though transitional issue throughout the EU/EEA under the Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation (MiCAR) for which the application window closes on 1 July 2026. For advice on that, please get in touch via Crowley Millar.

A key challenge for everyone in the crypto space is that 'bare' cryptoassets themselves have been largely unregulated since being popularised by the launch of bitcoin in 2009 (often referred to as 'exchange tokens' or 'utility tokens'). 

But some cryptoassets might have characteristics that also make them some kind of 'traditional' regulated instrument (usually referred to as 'security tokens' and 'e-money tokens').

So any firm which is already active in the crypto sector has to be careful in approaching the FCA for authorisation to carry on a new regulated cryptoasset activity in relation to a newly defined "qualifying cryptoasset" or "qualifying stablecoin" (or in the case of safeguarding, a “relevant specified investment cryptoasset”) that it has not already been carrying on an existing regulated activity for which it should already have obtained FCA authorisation. 

The FCA even sounds a clear warning about this, as well as getting the analysis right in relation to newly regulated activities:

2.8 Persons should consider the perimeter in relation to every activity they perform and should carry out an analysis on a case-by-case basis. Whether an activity is regulated will depend on the specifics of what a person is doing and their role in the relevant arrangements, whether the activity is carried on in the UK, whether it is carried on by way of business, and whether any exclusion or exemption applies. 

2.9 Anyone carrying on activities in relation to cryptoassets must consider the legislation and guidance carefully, and ensure that they have the appropriate permission for any regulated activities they carry on, or an exclusion or exemption... 

2.10 In cryptoasset markets, some terminology is used differently and business models do not necessarily map onto traditional financial services concepts. It might not be clear whether an arrangement is inside or outside the perimeter just from its name – what is important is the substance of the activity and the role performed by the person in question, not the terminology the market participants adopt. 

2.11 Persons should also consider this proposed guidance carefully where a service includes automated, blockchain-based or decentralised features. The fact that an arrangement involves smart contracts, public blockchains or some elements of decentralisation does not determine the perimeter position or place the arrangement outside of regulation. The question remains whether there is an identifiable person whose business includes carrying on the relevant activity in the UK. In that context, depending on the activity, considerations should include whether a person operates or maintains the service, sets key parameters, controls important aspects of how it functions, and/or receives fees or some other commercial benefit from the activity. As with any perimeter question, the analysis will depend on the facts. 

2.12 Carrying on a regulated activity in breach of the general prohibition has significant consequences. Contravention of section 19 of FSMA is a criminal offence that carries a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years, an unlimited fine, or both. A breach of the general prohibition means that agreements entered into by the unauthorised person carrying on regulated activity are unenforceable. There are also consequences for anyone who’s already authorised but who does not have the correct permission for the regulated activities they intend to carry on.

The consultation paper then goes on to explain the FCA's proposed interpretation of what constitutes the regulated instruments as well as the new types of regulated activity, including when they would be considered to be conducted 'by way of business' and 'in the UK' and how the exclusions might apply, as well as how all this relates to the existing registration regime for some types of cryptoasset service provider under the money laundering regulations and the financial promotions regime.

If you need advice on such things for the UK, please get in touch via Keystone.

Of course, this follows a similar though transitional issue throughout the EU/EEA under the Markets in Cryptoassets Regulation (MiCAR) for which the application window closes on 1 July 2026. For advice on that, please get in touch via Crowley Millar.

Of Agentic Commerce, Prompt Injection and Authorised Push Payment Fraud

I've posted separately on prompt injection (among the risks associated with generative/agentic AI) and UK payment service providers' refund obligations for authorised push payment fraud (among other forms of potential redress). But I don't think I've explained the clear link between the two, and the implications for the full 'magic' of 'agentic commerce'... This post is for information purposes only. If you need legal advice (e.g. legal analysis in the context of modelling/testing the tech), please let me know.

Authorised push payment fraud (APP fraud) occurs where you are tricked into paying someone you did not intend to. As mentioned, there are limited APP fraud reimbursement requirements for payment service providers who facilitate payments using certain UK payment systems, for example, and there may be other grounds for recovering your money, initially at the expense of your payment service provider.

Agentic commerce describes a scenario where some kind of 'agentic AI' tool (or 'bot') is deployed for the purpose of enabling the automation of product search, selection, purchase and payment. Such tools may be 'native' to an open generative AI platform or made available by a retailer or retail marketplace within that platform, as the recent failure of Walmart's trial of OpenAI's Instant Checkout has demonstrated, leading OpenAI to phase out its own bot and leave the retailers to handle product selection, purchase and payment.

The challenge for guarding against APP fraud in such an automated scenario is that AI agents ultimately cannot distinguish between legitimate and adverse 'prompts', which might be inadvertently introduced either directly or indirectly via an authenticated agent by an authenticated user. 

There are innumerable ways that an adverse prompt could find its way to a user's device, and then to the AI agent, but here are some recent examples. And the prompt may cause the agent or another system or programme to behave adversely, with a fraudulent purchase and/or payment to an unintended payee being only two examples.

Of course, UK payment service providers do have obligations to guard against APP fraud, whether they are part of the reimbursement schemes or not - and even extended mandatory processing times to allow for suspect transactions to be investigated. And anyone making a payment from a UK bank or payment account will be familiar with a number of hoops to be gone through except in a limited number of own-account payments, even after multi-factor account log-in.

Where payment service providers are acting as merchant acquirers, it is likely they their acquiring agreements push the risk of fraudulent transactions, chargebacks and refund onto the merchant. But there is still the job of monitoring and managing the risk that the merchant won't be able to reimburse the payment service provider...

One challenge will be whether the adverse prompts will be able to beat the 'hoops' or trick the user into overriding them, or override them in an automated fashion. Equally, a payment service provider might argue that the consumer has lost any right of reimbursement due to 'gross negligence' in not adhering to a certain 'standard of caution' in its use of an AI agent, for example.

At any rate, the need to meet such challenges would seem to count against the full promise of a 'magically' automated agentic commerce experience... or make it potentially enormously expensive to support without necessarily knowing whether unforeseen claims might suddenly surge.

 

Buy Now Pay Later Regulation To Start In July

Finally we have a date for the extension of consumer credit protection to certain 'buy now pay later' agreements. There has been a long delayed consultation process, which I've covered on this blog, resulting in a final Policy Statement issued today. As is typical, the FCA has made a few, fairly minor, changes to the approach that it consulted on in July 2025. Firms that aren't already regulated will be able to register for temporary permission between 15 May 2026 and 1 July 2026, and will have 6 months from 15 July to apply for full authorisation. If you need advice on the new regime, including whether you fall into it, please let me know. 

Broadly, BNPL is interest-free credit for a consumer's purchase of goods or services that is repayable within 12 months in no more than 12 instalments. This has benefited from an exemption from consumer credit regulation that the government has now limited to situations where the retailer or merchant ("supplier") is providing the credit directly to the customer. This means that such agreements will be regulated where a third party lender is involved ("deferred payment credit" or "DPC"). 

That market for DPC is already highly concentrated: three firms account for over 90% of the volume. But by regulating the product, the FCA thinks that other regulated firms might now offer it. I doubt it, but I suppose any unregulated firm that chooses to become regulated in order to offer DPC might decide to offer other types of regulated consumer credit.

Unlike with other forms of consumer credit (including various "exempt agreements" that do not include BNPL), the supplier will not need to be authorised as a credit broker in order to introduce the consumer to a DPC lender.

Ultimately, this is intended to benefit consumers. The FCA wants them to have fewer late payments to be treated better treatment when in financial difficulty. That means information to help them understand the risks of "deferred payment credit" as well as their rights, obligations and the protection available. This means they should have a better chance of being able to afford what they borrow, miss fewer repayments and be charged fewer late fees. Lenders should also end up being more supportive where the borrower encounters financial difficulty. 

If the impact of increased regulation of 'payday lending' is anything to go by, the extension of regulation into this space should mean fewer DPC than that aspect of the BNPL market today.

New UK Rules on Handling Data Protection Complaints

Among the recent changes to UK privacy law, UK controllers of personal data will need to update their privacy policies, processing agreements and related procedures by June this year to include a process for handling complaints about a breach of the UK's  data protection law and regulation, including by providing a complaint form which can be completed by data subjects electronically. This post is for information purposes only. Please let me know if you need any drafting or advice on how to comply.

Controllers must acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 30 days and, "without undue delay" take appropriate steps to respond and inform the complainant of the outcome. That includes making enquiries into the subject matter of the complaint, "to the extent appropriate", and informing the complainant about progress. 

The Information Commissioner has consulted on guidance on complaints handling requirements.

What if we already have a complaints procedure?

Some service providers are already required to have complaints handling policies and processes (e.g. financial services firms), and it's common for a customer to complain about more than one issue at the same time, so it's best to sweep up data protection complaints in the same process. 

Will we need to report the number of complaints received etc?

There's also the potential for the ICO to require controllers to report the number of complaints they receive in a given period, which may be in the pipeline. 

What other changes have been made?

The Information Commissioner has also issued more general guidance on the changes made under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, including changes relating to 'legitimate interests'.

This post is for information purposes only. Please let me know if you need any drafting or advice on how to comply. 

Have You Risk Assessed Your Chatbot? The General Product Safety Regulation

Amid the hype of agentic AI and people developing unfortunate relationships with chatbots, it's worth a reminder that the GPSR establishes safety obligations on manufacturers and their agents and other authorised representatives, importers, distributors, fulfilment service providers (e.g. warehouses) and online marketplaces who are targeting or otherwise participating in the EU consumer market, as well as Northern Ireland and the EEA (even if based outside the EU). This post is for information purposes. Let me know if you need legal advice, either via the UK or Ireland/EEA.

A 'product' could be any item, whether tangible, non-tangible or mixed nature, including software/AI applications, whether new, used, repaired or reconditioned, as of 13 December 2024 or since.

The GPSR does not legislate for product liability, which is dealt with under EU product liability legislation.

The European Commission has now issued detailed GPSR guidelines to help affected businesses to understand the requirements, including criteria for each category and how a business could fall into more than one. 

The UK government has also issued guidelines for businesses targeting or otherwise participating in the Northern Ireland market.

Manufacturers must perform and record an internal risk analysis before placing a product on the EU market (the guidelines include a template). Those based outside the EU will need to appoint a "responsible person" in the EU (who could be an importer etc) and disclose that on the product, packaging, parcel or an accompanying document. The 'responsible person' also has certain obligations, including notification of accidents. 

Safety recall and warnings to consumers should be done in a certain manner; and there is a Safety Business Gateway that firms (or their 'responsible person') must use to inform the authorities about dangerous products and accidents, depending where they sit in the supply chain.

This post is for information purposes. Let me know if you need legal advice, either via the UK or Ireland/EEA.

New Security Requirements For Digital Products - Hardware and Software

The EU's Cyber Resilience Act begins to apply from June 2026, ahead of full implementation in December 2027.

When designing, developing and producing any product with digital elements that is specified as 'critical' or 'important', the manufacturer will need to ensure that the product meets the essential cybersecurity requirements, carry out cyber risk and conformity assessments and comply with reporting obligations. 

Importers, distributors and 'open-source software stewards' also have specific obligations. 

The CRA itself is here, and the technical descriptions of 'important' and 'critical' products have just been published. 

There is also an initial set of FAQs that seems likely to evolve as implementation proceeds.

The full implementation time line, with links to relevant docs, is set out here.

This post is for information purposes. Please let me know if you need advice on it, whether you're based in or outside the EEA.

Tsunami Warning: The UK's FCA Consults On How It Will Regulate Crypto Activities

In April, the UK government published its proposed financial regulations for certain activities related to cryptoassets that will be supervised by the Financial Conduct Authority. Now, the FCA is consulting on the rules that it will apply. The consultation paper is a useful 'explainer' for those unfamiliar with FCA's approach to regulation and supervision, as many in the crypto world will be. There is a lengthy 'cost benefit analysis' in Annex 2 that's worth burrowing into for the specific impact of the rules on the crypto sector (as the FCA views it). The consultation ends on 12 November, with some items for comment by 15 October. Even more, activity-specific rules will be published for consultation on by year end as part of the FCA's 'crypto roadmap'.

The regulated cryptoasset activities will include issuing qualifying stablecoins, safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets and specified investment cryptoassets, operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform, intermediation and staking. 

FCA rules are very extensive and require firms to have appropriate systems, controls, processes, financial resources and expertise. For a sector that is very much anchored in libertarian, 'techno optimist' waters, this represents a tsunami...