United States Capitol for a ProCoinNews article about CLARITY Act Section 604 opposition.

The CLARITY Act’s Section 604 Is Now the Fight Over DeFi Liability

By Isaac • June 28, 2026 12:11 pm • Comments

A market-structure bill meant to give crypto regulatory clarity is drawing organized opposition, and the fight has landed on one provision.

Anti-trafficking advocates and Tribal Nations say Section 604 of the CLARITY Act could shield some third-party DeFi platform creators from liability.

The bill is H.R. 3633 in the 119th Congress, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025.

Trending: Maxine Waters Moves to Block Crypto From Your 401(k)

It has not become law.

The objection is straightforward. Opponents argue the language leaves victims and enforcement agencies with fewer remedies when bad actors operate through DeFi platforms.


CoinDesk put the newest CLARITY Act objection directly on Section 604’s liability language. CoinDesk posted that Katie Boller Gosewisch of the Alliance to End Human Trafficking said her group opposes the CLARITY Act.

The stated concern was that Section 604 could shield some third-party DeFi platform creators from liability. That is the heart of the article.

Crypto bills are usually sold to the market as clarity, but clarity can also mean deciding who gets legal protection and who does not. For DeFi builders, liability limits can be framed as necessary protection for software development.

For critics, the same language can look like a shield for people who build systems used in harmful activity. The article should keep that tension visible without pretending the objection is already a court ruling.

It is a live legislative dispute over where Congress should draw the line.


CoinDesk showed that the CLARITY Act pushback has moved beyond one advocacy group. CoinDesk posted that Rebecca Rettig discussed growing opposition to the CLARITY Act from Tribal Nations.

That broadens the story beyond a single anti-trafficking advocate. It also shows why the bill’s path through Congress can be complicated even if the crypto industry wants faster market-structure rules.

A bill can be pro-clarity for exchanges and token issuers while still drawing objections from groups focused on enforcement, victims and sovereignty. That is the kind of cross-pressure lawmakers have to resolve before a crypto bill becomes law.

For PCN readers, the takeaway is practical. Regulatory clarity does not arrive in a vacuum.

It arrives through specific compromises, and Section 604 is becoming one of the compromises opponents are challenging.


Congress.gov anchors the article to the official bill at the center of the dispute. Congress.gov identifies House Bill 3633 as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025.

That official page is important because the article should treat the CLARITY Act as live legislation rather than a vague talking point. The dispute is about real legislative text moving through Congress.

The bill’s purpose is to create a federal market-structure framework for digital assets. That makes the Section 604 debate especially important.

When Congress writes market-structure rules, it is also deciding how exchanges, token issuers, DeFi builders and users fit into the legal system. That is why opponents are focused on liability wording instead of only objecting to crypto regulation in general.

The official bill page also keeps the article precise about status. Readers should understand that critics are challenging language in a bill under consideration, not reacting to a law that has already taken effect.

The article should be careful not to overstate status. A bill text page is not the same as enacted law, and readers need that distinction.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews