bitcoin was never truly illegal, but by formally making it usable in california can this law be used against banks that ban customers purely for using bitcoin, with no evidence of laundering/drugs or terrorism??
meaning banks cant just ban joe public unless there is proof of illegal activities, no longer able to just shout "you use bitcoin, your banned"
No. Banks are private property and they can close your account for any reason (other than a protected class i.e. race, religion, etc). Most banks include language functionally which indicates that either party (the bank or the account holder) can close the account for any reason or even without providing reason by giving 30 days notice. I have never seen anything which indicates this was successfully challenged in court. Banks routinely close accounts for all kinds of legal businesses that for risk management or other dubious reasons the bank does not want to be associated with.
Technically prior to the passage of this law one could argue that Bitcoin miners in CA were unlawful. It was never enforced, there was no indication anyone ever intended to enforce it, and the stupidly written law should never have passed without correction in the first place. Still as written the statute did make it unlawful to "issue or put into circulation" any currency other than the legal tender of the United States. It is a correction of a law that as far as I know has never been enforced against anyone, ever since it was (poorly) written.
In short the bill does absolutely nothing other than to prevent this never enforced, poorly written law from being enforced in the future.
