Maine

The list of Maine parents waiting for a lawyer grew by 700 percent in 2024

Published

12 months ago

January 7, 2025

Like many of her colleagues, family law attorney Taylor Kilgore has been watching the list of child protection cases in need of lawyers grow over the past year.

When the state removes children from their parents’ care because of concerns about abuse or neglect, those parents are guaranteed an attorney under Maine law.

Increasingly, they aren’t getting one. Over the course of 2024, the number of child protection cases in need of at least one attorney increased 700 percent, according to a list compiled by the judicial branch. On January 3 of last year, the state lacked attorneys for 14 cases, the list showed. On December 30, that number stood at 112.

The list is sent to the Maine Commission on Public Defense Services, which distributes it to attorneys on its roster. The list is used to help find attorneys for parents who can’t afford them, but it also serves as a way for the state to understand the size of the problem.

In late October, Kilgore came up with an idea to help get cases off the list. Her plan was to ask the state to let her look at the confidential cases and then pitch them to other attorneys, who she thought would be more likely to accept cases if they had a sense of the circumstances and amount of work that would be involved. Child protection case records are typically kept confidential to protect the identity of the involved children and parents.

She pitched the idea to Jim Billings, executive director of the Maine Commission on Public Defense Services, the independent commission tasked with paying and managing the roster of attorneys representing clients who can’t afford a private attorney. Billings brought the idea to the judicial branch, which agreed to let Kilgore have access to the unstaffed cases in Lewiston.

But after getting a look behind the curtain at the Lewiston courthouse, Kilgore has concerns about whether the list is properly accounting for the problem.

“I don’t think the list is actually accurate,” Kilgore said.

Maine’s system for removing children from parents consists of several government entities: the Department of Health and Human Services, which investigates child abuse and neglect; the Attorney General’s Office, which represents the department in court; and the judicial branch, which oversees the proceedings and ultimately rules on cases.

Together, these three bodies oversee a growing number of children and parents whose cases are hidden from public view.

The system removes around 1,000 children a year, and is one that federal auditors found failed to follow its own rules. It also seems increasingly unable to provide parents with the legal representation guaranteed to them by law, a problem highlighted in a child welfare watchdog report published last week.

“The shortage of defense attorneys for parents has caused weeks and months-long delays in the progress of reuniﬁcation cases, harming children, parents, and increasing staﬀ workload,” Maine’s child welfare ombudsman Christine Alberi wrote in her annual report to lawmakers.

The report follows a December letter of no confidence in the head of DHHS’s Office of Child and Family Services, which investigates allegations of child abuse and neglect. The letter was signed by 150 caseworkers.

Kilgore’s experience raises questions about whether the system is capable of accurately tallying all the families and children it is failing.

‘The list is not perfect’

In late November and early December, Kilgore spent two weeks reviewing cases in the Lewiston court and calling attorneys to try to get them to take cases off the list.

She found four cases that had been staffed for at least three weeks, but had not been removed from the list. More concerning were cases she found that needed attorneys but didn’t appear on the list.

Kilgore had an associate go to the courthouse and take notes on the cases on the docket call, writing down the docket number any time a case lacked counsel. From that, she was able to identify three cases in need of attorneys that were not on the list. Additionally, a criminal defense attorney who heard about Kilgore’s work contacted her about a client. The attorney asked if she knew the status of the client’s child protection case. But when Kilgore looked, she found the case was not on the list.

“I had to write back and say ‘they’re not identified anywhere in this list as needing counsel,’” Kilgore said.

The judiciary distributes a similar list for criminal cases without an attorney, and MCPDS executive director Jim Billings said Kilgore’s experience mirrors accounts he’s heard from attorneys on the criminal side.

There are cases that are on the list that should probably come off because they have already been staffed, Billings said. Conversely, Billings has heard from criminal defense attorneys that there are unrepresented criminal defendants who should be on the list, but are not.

“The list is not perfect,” Billings said. “But right now it’s the best tool we have to try and track the cases and triage as best we can.”

Judicial branch spokesperson Barbara Cardone did not respond to multiple emails with questions about how the list is compiled, maintained and updated.

Kilgore’s project fits into the commission’s effort to ensure poor Mainers get the representation guaranteed to them under state and federal law. The list of criminal cases grew throughout 2024. At the end of December, there were nearly 1,000 unstaffed cases, including more than 140 cases that involved defendants in jail.

To combat this problem, MCPDS is in the process of opening and staffing public defender offices across Maine. The commission has also hired Machias-based attorney Molly Owens as chief of the new system’s parents’ counsel division. Owens is tasked with building a team of public defenders devoted to representing indigent parents in child protection cases. She is in the process of hiring three attorneys to join the nascent team.

Three years from now, MCPDS wants the parents’ counsel defender team to have between 20 to 25 attorneys, allowing them to represent one parent in about half the state’s cases.

Owens praised Kilgore’s efforts to understand and staff child protection cases in Lewiston and said she would like to see those efforts replicated.

“Do I think there are cases that are not on the list? If Taylor is finding them, then yes,” she said.

“I don’t know how I would know how common that is until we do what Taylor is doing.”

Parents who wish to maintain custody of their children are fighting against a system that a recent federal audit found failed to follow its own rules when investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect.

A capable attorney can help identify those missteps, put pressure on the department and use those errors to argue on behalf of parents in court. Attorneys can also connect clients to services that can help move them toward reunification with their children.

But a lack of attorneys makes that kind of zealous representation less likely, which in turn results in more families separated and more cost to the state.

Cases are confidential, so it’s unclear how often judges disagree with the state or rule in favor of parents. The Monitor asked the judicial branch for insight into this issue but was told the judiciary could not provide data on when the courts rule against the department.

The Monitor also submitted a public records request in October to both DHHS and the Attorney General’s Office, which represents the department in court, seeking data on how often the state loses in court. Neither agency has provided records or an estimate of when they will be able to fulfill the request.

One recent decision from the Maine Supreme Court shows how even repeated failures by the department can have little impact on the outcomes of cases.

On October 3, the high court published a memorandum decision in an appeal of a termination of parental rights out of Portland. The memo notes that the lower court was right to terminate the parental rights of the mother despite the fact that the judge in the case ordered the department to file a rehabilitation and reunification plan “seven times during the pendency of the case and never did so.”

Maine’s child removal rate has made it an outlier in the United States. Only Maine and Nebraska took more children into state custody in 2022 than in 2018, according to the most recent federal data.

More children entering state custody increases demand for attorneys at the same time as the supply is falling. The number of attorneys rostered with MCPDS representing a parent in at least one case fell by more than half, from 230 to 110, between 2018 and 2024.

‘We can’t do it alone’

The December 30 edition of the parents’ counsel list contained 112 cases. This translates to an even greater number of attorneys, since each parent in a case is entitled to an attorney, and representing more than one parent in a case would present a conflict of interest. Some cases involve multiple children, sometimes with multiple partners, and thus could require three or more attorneys.

Of those cases, 79 were added to the list more than a month prior. Twenty-seven were added to the list before October, meaning that parents in those cases could have been waiting for representation for three months or longer while their children were in state custody.

Seven of the cases were added before July 2024. On the December 16 list, there was a case dating from April 2023 — over a year and a half earlier. By the end of the year, after The Monitor asked Judiciary spokesperson Barbara Cardone about the case and received no response, it had been removed. Given the concerns raised about the accuracy of the list, it’s unclear whether the case had finally been staffed in late December, or if it had been staffed earlier but had not been removed from the tally.

An additional five cases had no dates at all.

Kilgore started her project in late November. She reviewed 43 docket numbers in Lewiston and was able to find representation for 21 of the 56 parents involved in those 43 cases.

One of the cases involved a parent who had been on the list since February. By Kilgore’s count, the parent had been without an attorney for 281 days. Confidentiality rules prevented Kilgore from disclosing details of the case, but she noted that it had procedural issues that desperately required an attorney.

“The case was kind of on fire,” she said. “In my opinion, the parent’s rights were being violated.”

Kilgore was able to find an attorney to take the case, and said that overall she thinks the experiment was successful. Billings agreed.

“I think it shows that if there are devoted resources, even in a market that we think is saturated, we can still make some progress on the list if the effort is put in,” Billings said.

Next month, Kilgore is going to bring the experiment to the Portland courthouse.

But the problem is larger than finding attorneys, said Owens, the parents’ counsel chief. DHHS and the courts need to be held accountable and find ways to keep families together while keeping kids safe, she said.

“A lot of departments and agencies got us here,” Owens said. “We want to be part of the solution, but we can’t do it alone.”

This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor, a nonprofit civic news organization. To get regular coverage from the Monitor, sign up for a free Monitor newsletter here.

Source link

Related Topics:#MaineMonitor Featured The list of Maine parents waiting for a lawyer grew by 700 percent in 2024

Click to comment

Maine

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks

Published

5 hours ago

January 6, 2026

Press Room

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks

Residents of Bay Bridge Estates in Brunswick said that Tuesday was the day that their homes were being hooked up to the town’s water supply. (Daryn Slover/Staff Photographer)

A new state report offers a series of recommendations to expand existing mobile home parks in Maine and build new ones, allow homeowners to obtain traditional mortgages at more favorable rates and overhaul the state’s oversight of parks.

The 30-page report, written by the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future and mandated by legislation passed last year, is intended to be a blueprint for future proposals as lawmakers seek to protect the roughly 45,000 Maine residents who live in mobile home parks.

It will be presented to the Housing and Economic Development Committee this month.

Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country — often considered the last form of unsubsidized affordable housing — are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases doubling or tripling prices, according to national data.

Park residents, often low-income families or seniors on a fixed income, own their homes but not the land they sit on and residents are essentially helpless against rent increases.

“If they’re forced to lose their housing because the rents get too high, it’s hard to see where they’d be able to go,” said Greg Payne, senior housing adviser for the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future.

The state is feverishly trying to build tens of thousands of housing units in the coming years, but Payne said in an interview it’s just as important to “protect the housing that we do have.”

“If we lose any of our affordable housing stock, that’s going to make our challenge even greater,” he said.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS, RESIDENTS

Many state officials would like to see more mom-and-pop or cooperatively owned manufactured housing communities, especially as the state tries to ramp up production.

But according to the report, the number of locally owned communities has been dwindling, and smaller owners and developers frequently struggle to increase available housing in their parks. Boosting supply could also help lower costs for existing residents.

As with all construction, it has gotten expensive.

“There are plenty of owners who I think would be willing to expand if the math worked,” Payne said. “If we’re able to help with that, it creates more units that we desperately need across the state and creates the opportunity to spread existing costs across more households.”

The report recommends, among other things, making it easier for park owners to access MaineHousing construction loans, which state statute currently prohibits.

The office also suggested developing a subsidy program that would give owners a forgivable loan if they agree to charge income-restricted lot rents to income-restricted households.

‘TOO GOOD TO MISS’

The report also recommends allowing mobile home buyers to take out traditional mortgage loans.

Historically, loans for manufactured homes have been titled as personal property or “chattel” loans, similar to cars. These loans, according to the report, typically have shorter terms, higher interest rates, fewer lenders to choose from and inferior consumer protection.

Over the years, construction technology and government regulations have evolved and factory-built houses are now often comparable to site-built housing, according to the report.

The price gap between the two is also narrowing, with many mobile homes selling for well over $200,000.

Payne said he spoke to an Old Orchard Beach resident whose interest rate is more than 11%, and is paying about $640 a month for a $60,000 loan, on top of her monthly lot rent. Comparatively, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac, the current interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is about 6.15%. That would save her hundreds of dollars a month.

“We don’t often have the opportunity to increase affordability and have nobody losing,” Payne said. “It’s an opportunity that could be too good to miss.”

‘SYSTEMIC LACK OF SUPPORT’

The report recommends an overhaul or “reimagining” of state regulation and oversight of mobile home communities to better serve residents.

Currently, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board is in charge of licensing and inspecting parks, while landlord and tenant issues and consumer protection claims are enforced by the Office of the Maine Attorney General or the court system.

But according to the report there is a “systemic lack of support” from state government in addressing some of the more common problems in parks — poor living conditions, untenable community rules and fees, disregard of state laws — and attempts to get help from either agency often result in referrals elsewhere.

“This pattern of circular referrals, rarely leading to support, often leaves park residents feeling isolated and unheard,” the report says.

The office recommends that the Legislature transfer the responsibility for certification, technical assistance and regulatory coordination from the Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation, where the board is currently housed, to the Maine Office of Community Affairs, which would also serve as a “first call” for residents seeking assistance.

Compliance with state rules would be handled by the attorney general’s office, which may need to find ways to provide more legal support to homeowners.

Finally, the report recommends directing more private resources toward supporting a housing attorney at Pine Tree Legal Assistance who has expertise in mobile home park issues.

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

Mobile home parks have been a hot-button issue in the last few Legislative sessions.

Lawmakers last year passed a series of bills designed to protect mobile homeowners, including one that gives park residents the “right of first refusal” if their community goes up for sale.

In addition to the recommendations outlined in the recent report, the state is seeking to collect more data about the state’s parks.

Historically, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board has not tracked whether the parks are owned by resident co-ops, out-of-state corporations or Maine-based operators. It also collected no information about how many lots are in each park, vacancies or average lot rents.

That information is now required in order to license a park.

Another bill, which has resulted in confusion and some retaliatory rent increases, requires owners to provide 90 days written notice of a rent increase and establishes a process for residents to request mediation if the increase is more than the Consumer Price Index plus 1%. While owners are required by the new law to act in good faith, they are not prevented from moving forward with an increase.

Efforts to institute statewide rent control failed in the last session, in part due to Maine’s long history of local control, but many communities, including Brunswick, Saco and Sanford, have passed rent control measures or moratoriums on rent increases as they grapple with how to protect residents.

The state report includes a model rent stabilization ordinance for municipalities but no mandate.

Source link

Maine

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system

Published

17 hours ago

January 6, 2026

Press Room

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system

A group of recreational cannabis flower products purchased in October at Brilliant Buds in Bethel were fully compliant with state requirements.

The stickers for the “Find.” brand products displayed required warnings, strain names, potency values, processor license information and batch identifiers.

A Find-brand package purchased at Brilliant Buds in Bethel shows a medical-use label faintly visible beneath the recreational sticker, including the strain name MAC 1. Find is Curaleaf’s economy and mid-tier product line, typically selling for about $75 an ounce in Maine’s medical market and around $125 an ounce in recreational retail. (Courtesy photo)

But when the recreational stickers were peeled back after being purchased on Oct. 24, medical cannabis labels were found underneath. The labels included Curaleaf’s Auburn facility address and medical-style batch data. Curaleaf is one of the largest multistate medical cannabis operators in the United States.

Was it a labeling error? Was the product for medical use instead of recreational? Was it simply a case of recycled packaging?

Those questions and more are at the core of labeling irregularities in Maine’s cannabis packaging, verification and retail compliance model: repurposed or mislabeled consumer packages can move through intake, stocking and point-of-sale without triggering an alert.

One recreational-use bag labeled “Turnpike Cookies” revealed a medical label beneath it printed with the strain “MAC 1.” A second bag of “Mintz Snackz” had the same label. In both cases, the originally labeled strain name was faintly visible through the sticker.

The discovery does not establish wrongdoing or intentional misconduct, but it does raise questions for consumers and regulators who may not necessarily be able to distinguish if a product on the shelf had an old label that was not properly removed or if the product was intended for one market but was being sold in the other without following all required rules.

In the case of the layered labels at Brilliant Buds, it was all legal. Maine’s recreational cannabis rules do not prohibit layered labels, and the final, visible sticker is treated as the compliance record at retail.

With labels from different regulatory programs remaining visible beneath a retail sticker, however, it has created confusion among consumers who want to know exactly where their cannabis is from and raised questions about packaging quality control.

Under Maine rules, the label itself is the mechanism by which retail compliance is communicated and enforced. The Office of Cannabis Policy allows multiple labels on a recreational package, provided required information is not obstructed.

Maine’s recreational cannabis program includes mandatory testing, track and trace, stringent labeling and universal symbols. The medical cannabis program does not require mandatory testing or track & trace.

Kaspar Heinrici, chief executive director of SeaWeed Co. in Portland, said the recreational cannabis market operates under a level of scrutiny that is often misunderstood by the public.

“There is still a misperception that cannabis operators are putting a plant into a bag with little oversight,” he said. “The reality is that regulated recreational operators are working with a level of organization, testing and standard operating procedures closer to the medical or financial services industries.”

TRACING CANNABIS

Maine’s recreational system requires cannabis sold at retail to be identifiable for recall purposes through batch information printed on the label.

Heinrici said Maine’s batch-based approach is intended to balance public health protections with operational practicality.

“If there is an issue with one unit of a product, it likely extends to the rest of the package and potentially the package it came from,” he said. “Being overly specific at the individual unit level is not going to provide additional benefit.”

At the retail shelf, compliance and recall depend on the accuracy of the information printed on the visible retail label. Inspection quality can vary depending on staffing levels, lighting, workflow and training. Batch numbers are often printed in small type.

The rule does not require individual retail units, such as eighths, quarters, ounces or pre-rolls, to carry a unique electronic identifier, radio frequency identification tags or scannable code. But it does for cultivation and wholesale inventory movement.

Maine uses Metrc (short for Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) a track-and-trace inventory system adopted in many cannabis jurisdictions.

Other states use different track-and-trace platforms. For example, Connecticut uses BioTrack. In Connecticut, each retail cannabis unit carries a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode, as well as a QR code with a link.

Curaleaf is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and operates more than 150 operates medical and recreational dispensaries nationwide.

Maine consumers do not have a comparable consumer-facing verification tool.

Heinrici said that while testing and traceability are essential, additional regulatory layers do not always translate into better consumer outcomes.

“The track-and-trace and testing requirements are important for public health, but they verge on being overly detailed and overly burdensome for the end consumer,” he said. “More regulation always comes with a cost, and that cost ultimately shows up at the register.”

SHIFTING MARKET IN MAINE

Curaleaf entered Maine in 2016 through its relationship with Remedy Compassion Center, one of the state’s original eight nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries and the first to open under Maine’s medical program.

While Curaleaf exited recreational retail storefronts in Maine in 2023, citing competitive pressures, the company remained active in the state’s medical cannabis program as well as recreational cultivation and manufacturing.

It appears Curaleaf is dipping its toes back into recreational retail. In late November, job postings for Curaleaf-managed operations at Brilliant Buds in Bethel signaled a return through a licensed partner rather than a Curaleaf-branded store. Additional Curaleaf job listings in Bangor indicate a recreational retail component planned for that location.

Curaleaf did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. Attempts to seek comment from Brilliant Buds were also unsuccessful.

A reporter visited the Bethel store in person but was asked to leave upon entry. A follow-up phone call to the store and subsequent emails seeking comment were not answered.

Office of Cannabis Policy Data Analytics Director Eric Miller said recently that recreational sales are strongest in western and southern Maine, particularly in border-adjacent regions near New Hampshire, a factor that may help explain Curaleaf’s focus on Bethel.

John Hudak, the director of Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy, said sales data suggest some border effects, but emphasized they are not the primary driver of Maine’s recreational market.

“I think New Hampshire is having an impact in York and Cumberland County, but it’s not the major driver of Maine’s cannabis economy,” Hudak said, adding that tourism and Maine consumers account for most recreational sales.

MEDICAL vs. RECREATIONAL

Maine regulates cannabis under three distinct frameworks: medical cannabis, recreational cannabis and hemp-derived products. Each system operates under different statutes, labeling rules, testing standards and tax structures.

Recreational cannabis is overseen by the Office of Cannabis Policy and is subject to labeling rules, mandatory third-party testing, Metrc oversight and a 10% excise tax. As of late 2025, Maine lists roughly 180 licensed recreational cannabis stores, along with 78 cultivation facilities and 81 manufacturing facilities statewide.

Maine’s medical cannabis program is also overseen, separately, by the Office of Cannabis Policy. Maine lists 86 active medical dispensaries and approximately 1,554 registered caregivers statewide. A medical cannabis caregiver is an individual or business authorized to grow and sell cannabis directly to registered patients, often operating at smaller scale and under less prescriptive labeling and testing rules.

“From a caregiver standpoint, testing and transparency matter because trust is everything,” said a Franklin County-area medical cannabis caregiver who requested anonymity. “Even unintentional confusion around labeling or testing can make patients question whether a product is safe.”

In July, cPort Credit Union notified many medical cannabis caregivers and caregiver storefronts statewide that their business accounts would be closed, citing evolving compliance expectations and regulatory risk. The decision did not apply to licensed medical dispensaries, which are subject to higher levels of oversight.

“Patients ask more questions now than they did a few years ago,” said the Franklin County caregiver. “Public perception around safety is shaped as much by labeling and communication as by the product itself.”

The labeling incident in Bethel illustrates a possible hole in Maine’s recreational oversight model. Cultivation and wholesale movement can be tracked with some accuracy, but at the retail shelf things can get much more dicey, relying on individual inspectors and label accuracy — rather than actual traceability.

At the point of sale, the sticker is the system. Against that backdrop, state regulators are continuing broader discussions about testing standards and consumer protection.

The Office of Cannabis Policy hosted a Cannabis Conversation on Testing Lab Standards on Dec. 22, hosted by director Hudak, which focused on how the state and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention work together to ensure certified cannabis testing labs, examining laboratory procedures, oversight and public health standards. The video can be watched on Maine OCP’s YouTube page.

Source link

Maine

Maine secures $1.9M settlement for bitcoin kiosk scam victims

Published

1 day ago

January 5, 2026

Press Room

Maine secures .9M settlement for bitcoin kiosk scam victims

A major cryptocurrency ATM operator will pay $1.9 million to Maine residents who were defrauded by scammers using the company’s kiosks, according to a consent agreement with the state.

The agreement, between Bitcoin Depot and the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection, follows a two-year investigation that included the Office of the Maine Attorney General. It was signed in December and announced Monday.

Bitcoin Depot is based in Atlanta and operates over 25,000 kiosks in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Mexico and Hong Kong, according to its website. The company operated about 80 unlicensed kiosks in Maine — until the state passed emergency legislation in June to regulate virtual currency ATMs.

Bitcoin Depot’s website no longer lists kiosks in Maine. “They’ve been gone since last summer,” said Linda Conti, bureau superintendent.

Most of the company’s machines were in York, Cumberland, Kennebec and Penobscot counties, Conti said.

It’s unclear how many Mainers have been scammed through Bitcoin Depot kiosks, exactly where they were located or how much money each victim might receive.

“We will not know how much each refund will be until we have received and reviewed all of the claims,” according to information posted on the bureau’s website.

Claims must be filed on or before April 1, 2026, and may be submitted online. The bureau will begin issuing refunds in May.

INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY

The bureau said the scams involved transactions made at Bitcoin Depot kiosks, where people purchased cryptocurrency and deposited it into “unhosted wallets” provided by third-party fraudsters.

An unhosted wallet is a type of digital wallet that is hosted and controlled by a user, rather than by a financial institution, money transmitter, exchange or other virtual asset service provider.

Although Bitcoin Depot no longer has kiosks in Maine,nearly 100 other cryptocurrency ATMs are still operating across the state, Conti said, including CoinFlip, CoinStar and Coinme machines.

In March 2023, bureau investigators found that Bitcoin Depot kiosks in Maine appeared to provide money transmission functions and invited the company to apply for a money transmitter license, according to the consent agreement.

The company applied for a license that month, but the application wasn’t deemed complete until February 2025 and was denied in April 2025. Bitcoin Depot appealed the decision in May.

In July 2025, the bureau provided Bitcoin Depot with a list of consumer transactions at its kiosks in which Maine consumers may have suffered financial loss and harm as a result of third-party fraudsters.

As part of the consent agreement, Bitcoin Depot must send a $1.9 million check to Maine’s attorney general by Feb. 2 and has agreed to fully comply with Maine’s consumer protection laws as a now-licensed money transmitter.

Bitcoin Depot is still licensed to transmit funds in Maine through online transactions, Conti said.

The bureau continues to investigate other cryptocurrency kiosk operators, she said. “The kiosks are where the trouble happens,” Conti said.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Gov. Janet Mills praised the bureau for securing an agreement with Bitcoin Depot “that will put money back into the pockets of Maine people who were defrauded by predatory third-party scammers.”

Mills urged all Mainers “to talk with their loved ones about the threats of scammers and precautions to take to avoid these cruel and often sophisticated schemes.”

Maine has recently adopted laws that protect consumers from third-party scammers, including the Maine Money Transmission Modernization Act, which the governor signed in 2024.

In June 2025, Mills also signed emergency legislation that limits daily transmission amounts from virtual currency kiosks, caps fees and exchange rates, and provides redress for consumers.

“Maine’s new consumer protection laws have allowed us to reach this consent agreement,” Conti said. “Whenever you have new technologies, you’re going to have people who are vulnerable and need to be protected.”

The laws include an unhosted wallet provision, which requires money transmitters to employ new technologies to ensure that Maine consumers own and control their virtual wallets.

To be eligible for a portion of the $1.9 million, claimants must have been a Maine resident between 2022 and 2025; used a Bitcoin Depot kiosk in Maine during that period to convert cash to cryptocurrecy; and deposited the cryptocurrency into an unhosted wallet provided by a scammer or third-party fraudster.

The full consent agreement and FAQs for consumers are available on the bureau’s website. For more information call 800-332-8529 or 207-624-8527.

Source link