Digital Transformation: eSignature and ePayment News and Trends - May/June 2025

Today’s ever-shifting business environment means that consumers, businesses, employers, and employees all expect to transact digitally. To remain efficient and competitive, companies must digitally transform their businesses. Successful transformation and maintenance require careful planning and up-to-date knowledge to ensure smooth integration with existing business technology, positive customer experience, and ongoing regulatory compliance.

This newsletter includes legal insights and brief summaries of recently enacted federal and state laws, federal and state regulatory activities, fresh judicial precedent, and other important news to keep you up to date in the ever-evolving electronic environment.

If you would like to discuss one of these items, or a project you are considering, please contact any of the editors – and, if there is a topic you would like us to cover in a future alert, we would love to hear from you.

Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act

By: Margo Tank, Liz Caires, and Emily Honsa Hicks

The 25th anniversary of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) marks a significant milestone in the evolution of digital transactions. Signed into law on June 30, 2000, ESIGN established the legal validity of electronic signatures and records, ensuring they are just as enforceable as their paper counterparts. By enabling digital transactions nationwide, ESIGN helped businesses and government agencies streamline processes, reduce paperwork, and save costs associated with physical document handling. It was also the catalyst for the broader adoption of digital technologies, paving the way for innovations in e-commerce, online banking and lending, and more.

We are celebrating ESIGN’s enactment along with the Electronic Signature and Records Association (ESRA) and former President Bill Clinton, who signed it into law in 2000.

The enactment of ESIGN was a gating issue for businesses wanting to take advantage of the internet. Back in 1998, the internet was becoming accessible, and businesses could see its value in its ability to reach more customers, create efficiencies, and lower transaction costs. However, questions remained about the validity and enforceability of using electronic signatures and records. Most state and federal laws then, and still today, have writing, signing, and original document requirements; the question at the time was how to meet those paper-based requirements in an electronic environment.

In 1999, recognizing the need for a uniform commercial law to address this uncertainty, The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws issued for adoption by each state the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). While some states adopted the UETA in its purest form, other states amended it to exclude various transaction types and consumer disclosures, impacting the UETA’s usefulness as a uniform statute.

Out of this lack of uniformity and the growing need for a federal baseline, ESIGN was conceived, and its appeal was recognized by Congress. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the country’s need to conduct transactions remotely and demonstrated the wisdom of creating legal certainty around the validity and enforceability of electronic signatures and records.

Now, 25 years later, ESIGN and the UETA have proven to be remarkedly durable. Even as advances in technology, such as blockchain, smart contracts, and agentic artificial intelligence (AI) have emerged, the principles articulated and the technology neutral framework adopted in ESIGN and UETA have proven flexible in accommodating these developments.

Businesses now are regularly relying on ESIGN and the UETA for digital transactions. If you already digital or plan to be in the near future, see our guide: So you want to Go Digital.

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

FEDERAL

Treasury

Treasury seeks information on transition to digital payments. The US Department of the Treasury on May 30 announced the release of a request for information (RFI) related to Executive Order (EO) 14247, "Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account," which transitions federal disbursements to electronic payments. Beginning September 30, all federal payments that are currently made by paper check – including Social Security benefits, tax refunds, and vendor payments – will be made electronically. The RFI seeks input on various questions covering topics such as:

• Paper check usage for government collections and disbursements
• Public awareness campaign and stakeholder outreach
• Preferred EFT methods
• General comments related to EO 14247

Responses to the RFI were due on June 30.

GAO

GAO releases report on AI. On May 19, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced the release of a report to congressional committees entitled, “Artificial Intelligence – Use and Oversight in Financial Services.” The report reviews (1) the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) use in financial services, (2) federal financial regulators’ oversight of AI use in financial services, and (3) the regulators’ AI use in their supervisory and market oversight activities. In the report, the GAO notes that most regulators, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), offer comprehensive model risk management guidance. However, the GAO reiterated its 2015 recommendation that Congress consider granting the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) authority to examine technology service providers for credit unions and also recommended that the NCUA update its model risk management guidance to encompass a broader variety of models used by credit unions.

CFPB

CFPB withdraws proposed rules. In May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) withdrew several proposed rules as described below:

• Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices (Regulation V): This proposed rule would have expanded the scope of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), in part by amending the definitions of “consumer report” and “consumer reporting agency” to include additional activities or entities that share consumer information.
• Electronic Fund Transfers Through Accounts Established Primarily for Personal, Family, or Household Purposes Using Emerging Payment Mechanisms: This rule attempted to clarify requirements related to electronic fund transfers and offered a framework for determining when the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E would apply to new and emerging digital payment mechanisms.
• Rules, policy statements, advisory opinions, and other guidance related to, among other things, the CFPA, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, FCRA, EFTA, and Truth in Lending: One of the withdrawn interpretive rules was the Truth in Lending; (Regulation Z); Use of Digital User Accounts to Access Buy Now Pay Later Loans of which the CFPB announced six days earlier it would not prioritize enforcement.

Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve begins 2025 census of finance companies and lenders. On June 6, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it began its Census of Finance Companies and Other Lenders. This census, conducted every five years, allows the Federal Reserve to produce current data on the types and volumes of financing provided by nonbank financial institutions. While participation is voluntary, responses are confidential and results help inform the Federal Reserve’s credit market policy.

FTC

FTC issues additional guidance on Safeguard Rule. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on June 16 announced the release of “Automobile Dealers and the FTC’s Safeguards Rule Frequently Asked Questions” discussing the requirements of the Safeguards Rule, which was mandated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and how it specifically applies to motor vehicle dealers. The Safeguards Rule requires nonbanking financial institutions, including motor vehicle dealers, to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive security program to keep their customers’ information safe.

OCC

OCC seeks digitalization information from community banks. On May 12, the OCC announced the issuance of an RFI regarding community bank digitalization to gather input from community banks and relevant stakeholders on their “engagement with the digitalization.” According to the RFI, the OCC is seeking input on the challenges and opportunities associated with digital transformation and invites feedback from community banks, industry groups, technology providers, and other stakeholders on several critical topics:

• Planning for digitalization: Challenges in pursuing digitalization, the strategic importance of digitalization, factors that influence prioritization, and how community banks address the need for obtaining and retaining subject matter expertise and qualified personnel
• Board and governance: The role of boards of directors in overseeing digitalization, challenges faced, governance processes, and balancing digital strategies with risk appetite and long-term mission
• Due diligence and implementation: Factors affecting due diligence and pre-implementation research, common obstacles during pre-implementation and implementation phases, and strategies for overcoming these challenges
• Digitalization costs and budget: Types of up-front and ongoing costs, resource requirements, and the impact of budget limitations on digitalization efforts
• Use of third parties: Reliance on third-party providers, management of these relationships, impediments faced, risk management, and the availability and effectiveness of third-party solutions
• Competition and market trends: The impact of digitalization on competitiveness with other banks and fintechs, risks of not adopting digital strategies, how customer feedback is gathered, and how trends and customer demands influence digitalization initiatives
• Use of AI and ML: Incorporation of AI and machine learning (ML), evolving uses, risk management, reasons for use, and desired regulatory support for AI adoption
• Effect of applicable laws and regulations: How regulatory requirements affect digitalization decisions, challenges posed by compliance, and ways regulators can support adaptation and competitiveness
• Associated risks: Banks and third-party providers’ approaches to managing material financial, cybersecurity, and data privacy risks associated with digitalization, safeguarding against evolving threats, and ways regulators can support adoption of new technologies and risk management
• Data sharing: Practices and challenges in sharing data with third parties including fintechs, challenges encountered in and management of the use of secure connectivity methods, limitations in application programming interface (API) offerings, measures/frameworks used to ensure seamless data exchange, interoperability, and secure communication across platforms

Comments and supporting materials were due by June 26.

STATE

UETA

Illinois amends UETA. On June 24, the Illinois legislature adopted HB 1631, which amends the state Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) to allow governmental agencies to specify the required format and attributes of the electronic records and electronic signatures and the specific processes and procedures governing their use. The state UETA formerly required the state Department of Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State to adopt rules regarding such specifications; but, as amended, the state UETA now authorizes the Secretary of State and the Department of Innovation and Technology to adopt rules setting forth minimum requirements concerning the required format and attributes of electronic records and electronic signatures and the processes and procedures governing their use.

eConsent

Illinois permits banking consents under the ESIGN Act. On June 20, the Illinois legislature sent to the governor for signature SB 1777, which amends the state Financial Institutions Electronic Documents and Digital Signature Act to provide that consent to electronic transactions given by the customer under the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act satisfies the consent requirements of state law.

ePayments

Arkansas allows for precious metals-back electronic payment system. On April 17, Arkansas enacted HB 1918, which enables the adoption and use of a "precious metals-backed electronic payment system" in the state. Such an electronic payment system is defined to: (1) use bullion held in a bullion depository as backing for electronic transactions; (2) allow for the redemption of bullion by electronic payment system participants; (3) enable the account holder to make payments to a participating vendor; and (d) be an entity authorized and approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State to provide an account that holds bullion and allows account holders to buy, sell, save, or spend bullion as a form of currency.

The new law requires the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State to promulgate rules to implement the new law, including the ability of a vendor to elect payment for goods of services from a precious metals-back electronic payment system participant to be in either bullion or dollars, and authorizing and approving such vendors to do business with the state.

Earned wage access

Maryland enacts EWA law. On May 25, the Maryland legislature adopted the Earned Wage Access and Credit Modernization Act as HB 1294. If signed by Governor Wes Moore, the new law provides for licensing and regulation of earned wage access (EWA) providers, including fee limitations. The bill defines a provider as “a person who provides to consumers either consumer-directed earned wage access or employer-integrated earned wage access.” The law goes into effect October 1.

California DFPI seeks information. In May, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) requested that any person engaging as a finance lender providing income-based advances under a California Financing Law license send the DFPI a notice that the lender is offering such services to state residents or intends to offer such services to state residences. Responses were sought by June 2.

Buy now, pay later

New York enacts BNPL law. On May 9, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the signing of the state’s budget legislation, S 3008, which includes in Part Y a licensing and regulatory framework for “buy-now-pay-later” (BNPL) lenders. National and federal banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and trust companies, and foreign banking corporations licensed to transact business in New York are not subject to the law. The law covers direct lenders and platforms facilitating BNPL loans and applies to a broad range of installment products, including those with no finance charges. The law defines a BNPL loan as “closed-end credit provided to a consumer with such consumer’s particular purchase of goods and/or services, other than a motor vehicle” and excludes certain credit sales. Noncompliance with the new law may result in voided loans and penalties. The law will take effect 180 days after implementing rules are promulgated.

eTitling and motor vehicles

Arizona permits electronic powers of attorney related to total loss statements. On May 13, Arizona enacted HB 2303, which permits a power of attorney (POA) involving a total loss vehicle settlement to be executed using electronic signatures, provided that the platform used can print the POA on hard copy and validates the signer’s identity using NIST IAL2 or higher without biometrics. The POA is required to state that the electronic signature was obtained using the NIST IAL2 or higher authentication process.

Arkansas permits eTitles. On April 21, Arkansas enacted HB 1845, which allows the electronic administration of documents related to the ownership of motor vehicles; authorizes electronic lien, titling, and registration systems; and authorizes the creation of a secure digital title system. The new law also authorizes electronic signatures for motor vehicle registration and certificates of title, as well as electronic disclosure of odometer readings.

Nevada enables use of digital license plates. On June 10, Nevada enacted AB 296, which enables the use of digital licenses plates for motor vehicles and requires a digital license plate device to be attached to the vehicle. The law provides requirements for sellers of such devices and users of digital license plates.

Indiana allows eRegistration. On May 6, Indiana adopted HB 1390, which allows the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles to issue an electronic certificate of registration. Additionally, a person that owns or holds a lien upon a vehicle may electronically sign the certificate of title to assign such certificate to the insurance company upon a total loss settlement.

Estates and trusts

North Carolina adopts Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act. On June 18, the North Carolina legislature adopted HB 40, which allows the use of electronic records and signatures in connection with agreements to reallocate property disposition upon death of community property spouses.

Washington adopts UCTA. On April 22, Washington adopted SB 5037, the Uniform Custodial Trust Act (UCTA), which allows the use of electronic signatures and records with a living trust. Washington joins 20 other US jurisdictions that have adopted the UCTA.

States adopt UEEPDA. The Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act (UEEPDA) enables electronic signatures and records for nontestamentary estate planning documents such as trusts and powers of attorney, and has been adopted by Colorado, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Washington. The following states join these four in adopting the UEEPDA:

• North Dakota enacted SB 2127 on March 26
• The Missouri legislature adopted HB 754 on May 30, which will become effective if signed by Governor Mike Kehoe

Georgia allows electronic signatures, records, and transmission in connection with trusts. On May 14, Georgia enacted HB 327 which, in part, provides for electronic trust administration records and electronic signatures with respect to most trusts, and permits electronic delivery of communications related to such trusts, including via email or an online portal.

eSignatures

Oregon adopts eSignatures for corporate documents. Effective May 27, Oregon enacted HB 3588, which permits the use of electronic signatures, records, and methods of transmission in connection with corporate entity formation documents and entity communications.

eRecords

States adopt the UELMA. The model Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA), promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission, makes government information available online provided that the official electronic legal material is authenticated as unaltered, preserved in electronic or print form, and accessible to the public. Such government information includes the state constitution, laws, statutes, and regulations. The states below join the 24 US jurisdictions that have enacted the UELMA (Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Washington, DC; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; Nevada; North Dakota; Ohio; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Texas; US Virgin Islands; Utah; Washington; and West Virgina):

• Arkansas enacted HB 1739 on April 17
• Montana enacted HB 111 on April 12
• Oklahoma enacted HB 2258 on May 29

Taxation

Nevada allows Department of Taxation to deliver notices electronically. On June 10, Nevada enacted AB 594, which authorizes the Nevada Department of Taxation to electronically deliver any notice, decision, or other written communication that the Department legally required to provide to a person, unless: (1) the person has opted out of electronic delivery or (2) the Department is required by other law to send such a notice, decision, or written communication using a nonelectronic method of delivery. Permissible methods of electronic delivery under the law are: (1) delivery to a secure account of a person who has registered for an account with an electronic system maintained by the Department; (2) delivery to an electronic mail address at which a person has agreed to receive notices, decisions, and other written communications from the Department; and (3) posting a notice, decision, or other written communication on an electronic network or internet website maintained by the Department that is accessible to a person via the internet or a mobile application, and delivering a separate notice of such posting to the electronic mail address of the person. The Department is required to continue providing notices of determinations of deficiency in the payment of taxes or the suspension or revocation of certain permits issued by the Department by personal service or by mail.

INDUSTRY

NIST withdraws digital signature timeliness recommendation. On July 1, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its withdrawal of NIST Special Publication 800-102 “Recommendation for Digital Signature Timeliness” after receipt of a single public comment in response to its notice of potential withdrawal, which agreed with NIST’s proposal. SP 800-102 discusses the use of timestamps to establish the time when a digital signature was generated. According to the announcements, outside standards bodies have developed more relevant and comprehensive guidance in the latest revisions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) X9.95 (Trusted Time Stamp Management and Security) and ISO/IEC 18014 (Time-stamping Services).

NIST publishes 2024 cybersecurity and privacy program report. On April 28, NIST announced publication of Special Publication 800-236 “Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report for NIST Cybersecurity and Privacy Program.” SP 800-236 highlights the programs research activities across areas including cryptography, emerging technologies, and progress in NIST’s identity and access management program.

ISO issues free standard for obtaining and recording consent for use of biometric data. On June 6, the International Standards Organization made its publication ISO/IEC TS 2750:2023, “Privacy technologies – Consent record information structure” available at no charge. This standard, originally published in 2023, provides requirements and guidelines used by organizations in obtaining and recording consent for their use of biometric data in multiple jurisdictions. It provides requirements and recommendations on the use of consent receipts and consent records associated with a “PII principal's PII processing consent,” aiming to support the:

• Provision of a record of the consent to the PII principal
• Exchange of consent information between information systems, and
• Management of the life cycle of the recorded consent.

The standard builds on ISO/IEC 29184 for “Information technology – Online privacy notices and consent.”

MISMO seeks comments on standard for eHELOCs. On June 5, MISMO®, the real estate finance industry's standards organization, announced that it is seeking public comment on the SMART Doc® V3 eHELOC Specification. This standard was developed to meet requests for natively created electronic documents to support the growth of home equity lines of credit (HELOCs). MISMO also requests that any organization that may have any patent or patent applications, or other intellectual property rights that might be infringed upon by an organization that uses or is compliant with this proposed standard, to disclose them in writing. All comments and disclosures were due by July 5.

CASE LAW

FEDERAL

Supreme Court finds no court deference to FCC orders. On June 20, the US Supreme Court held in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation (2025 WL 1716136, US Sup Ct, June 20, 2025) that, absent express statutory preclusion of judicial review, a district court in an enforcement proceeding is not bound by an agency's pre-enforcement statutory interpretation but must determine the meaning of the statute itself, and the Hobbs Act did not preclude a district court from disagreeing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s statutory interpretation. The court agreed with petitioners that the district court does not have to treat FCC orders as binding precedent and, instead, may make its own interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. For more information on the case and the split in the circuit courts, see our January/February 2025 issue.

Preponderance of evidence standard applied to electronic signatures. Two recent California US District Court cases have addressed the standards for electronic signatures disputes.

• In Byler v. Mastec Servs. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00181-SB-DTB, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120135 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2025), a plaintiff brought a putative class action before the US District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of California labor law. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, presenting evidence that the plaintiff had electronically signed arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers during his onboarding process via their online HR portal. Despite the plaintiff’s denial of having signed any such agreement, the court found that the defendants’ documentation – including audit trails, email and text communications, and secure login procedures – demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Byler had electronically signed the agreements. The decision was grounded in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California law, which recognize the validity of electronic signatures and require courts to enforce arbitration agreements when a valid contract exists, and emphasized that a preponderance of evidence standard applies to disputes over electronic signatures – if a party challenges the validity of an electronic signature in opposition, the other party is required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the signature was authentic.
• In Rios v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. U.S. Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00251-DAD-CKD, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114526 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2025), another employment case, this one centering on discrimination claims, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California noted that the arbitration opponent must offer admissible evidence that creates a factual dispute as to the authenticity of the offered signatures, and asserted that when validity of the signature is challenged, the moving party has to establish the signature’s authenticity by a preponderance of the evidence. The court cited several other older California cases when noting that the burden of authenticating an electronic signature is not great.

Online clickwrap arbitration and class-action waiver in fee dispute enforced. In Newman v. SL Green Realty Corp., No. 24-CV-00335 (MMG), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121860 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2025), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether consumers who purchased tickets online to an immersive observation experience were bound by arbitration and class-action waiver provisions contained in the defendant’s website’s electronic terms and conditions. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to disclose a $3.00 processing fee prior to purchase, in violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07(4) but, during the online checkout process, purchasers were required to affirmatively click a button indicating each purchaser’s acceptance of terms and conditions that were accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink. The court found that this process constituted a valid “clickwrap” agreement under New York law, and that the plaintiffs had sufficient notice and manifested assent to the terms, including the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions.

Federal court compels arbitration based on clickwrap agreement in credit reporting dispute. In Russell v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117536 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2025), the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute involving alleged inaccuracies in a consumer credit report. The plaintiff had enrolled in Experian’s CreditWorks service by completing an online form and clicking a “Create Your Account” button, beneath which a conspicuous notice stated that clicking constituted acceptance of the Terms of Use Agreement. The agreement, accessible via a bold, blue hyperlink, included a broad arbitration clause covering disputes related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and expressly named Experian and its affiliates as parties to the agreement. The court found that the online enrollment process provided reasonable notice of the contractual terms and that Russell’s affirmative action of clicking the enrollment button constituted valid assent under Illinois law. Applying the FAA, the court held that the arbitration clause was enforceable and encompassed the FCRA claims at issue.

Nevada court addresses digital contracting and trade secret claims in software dispute. In ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright National Flood Insurance Services LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119147 (D. Nev. June 24, 2025), a complex trade secret and contract dispute involving digital access to proprietary software, the US District Court for the District of Nevada found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the defendants had misappropriated certain trade secrets and whether the click-through End-User License Agreement (EULA) was validly accepted through the digital login process. The case centered on allegations that Wright National Flood Insurance Services and its consultant, Evoke Technologies, accessed and used ImageKeeper’s cloud-based insurance claims system through user accounts created in violation of contractual and confidentiality obligations. The court examined the enforceability of digital agreements, including the EULA, and considered whether the defendants’ access and use of the system constituted misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. The court denied summary judgment on claims related to the breach of contract and the Stored Communications Act but granted summary judgment on other statutory and tort claims, including those preempted by the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

STATE

State courts continue to enforce electronically signed agreements. In Ercevik v. Don Wood Hyundai LLC, 2025 WL 621693 (CtApp OH, 4th Distr February 21, 2025), an Ohio court upheld a decision of the trial court to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings in an action against a car dealership based upon claims arising from the purchase of a vehicle from the dealership. The dealership submitted a document that the plaintiff signed using a wet signature containing terms governing the electronic signature process, including an agreement to use legally binding electronic signatures to sign all necessary documents for the transaction. The sales contract, which was electronically signed by plaintiff, included a detailed and lengthy arbitration clause; and while the plaintiff did not deny signing the documents, she claimed she did not know what she signed (she indicated that she did not read them, and to the extent that she did she did not understand them) and that she was not provided paper copies. However, the plaintiff conceded that documents were available through an electronic portal and she accessed them after the sale.

Illinois requires authentication of electronic signatures. In Costello v. Urb. Air Adventure Park N. Riverside, 2025 IL App (1st) 250219-U, 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 868 (Ill. App. Ct. May 22, 2025), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration based on electronically signed agreements. The defendants presented two electronically signed release agreements and a membership agreement containing arbitration clauses, asserting that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any claims arising from her use of the facility. The court reviewed the procedures for electronic registration and signature, including the collection of personal information and the use of an online platform. The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to authenticate the electronic signatures under the Illinois UETA, 815 ILCS 333/1 et seq. The court found that the defendants did not provide an affidavit or other evidence verifying the authenticity of the plaintiff’s electronic signature or demonstrating the efficacy of any security procedure to confirm her identity. The holding is applicable within the jurisdiction of Illinois and was decided under the standards for authentication of electronic records and signatures in civil procedure.

Delaware upholds use of electronic signatures in board actions. In Vejseli v. Duffy, 2025 Del. Ch. LEXIS 120 (Del. Ch. May 21, 2025), the Delaware Court of Chancery resolved challenges to actions taken by the board of Ionic Digital, Inc., including the reduction of board seats and the rejection of a stockholder nomination notice. The case involved a challenge to the use of an electronic signature platform by a corporate board of directors to execute a unanimous written consent to set the date for the annual meeting and reduce the number of director seats. The court reviewed evidence regarding the timing and process of electronic execution, including testimony about the use of the electronic signature platform for electronic signatures, and found that the electronic execution of the board consent was valid for the purposes of effectuating the board’s actions. While the court affirmed the use of electronic platforms and electronic signatures in a board’s process and confirmed them as valid under Delaware law, ultimately the court held that the substance of the board’s actions was not for a valid corporate purpose and a breach of fiduciary duty.

Validity of electronic signatures upheld in California discovery verifications. In Cooper v. OCL2020, LLC, 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 23213 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 11, 2025), the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, denied a motion to compel the production of original verified responses to discovery requests in a negligence action where the plaintiff challenged the validity of the defendants’ electronically signed verifications, arguing that electronic signatures did not satisfy the statutory requirements for sworn statements under California law. The court reviewed the relevant provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, including sections 2015.5, 2030.210(a), and 2030.250(a), as well as the state UETA, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1-1633.17. The court held that electronic signatures are valid for the purpose of verifying discovery responses, provided they comply with the requirements of the UETA.

California enforces digital vehicle purchase arbitration agreement. In Schoening v. Tesla, Inc., 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 12330 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 14, 2025), the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, considered a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute arising from a vehicle purchase agreement. The plaintiffs challenged the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, arguing that the terms were presented via hyperlink and that there was no traditional or electronic signature on the agreement. The court reviewed the parties’ use of a “clickwrap” process, where consumers accept terms by clicking an “I agree” button with a link to the agreement available and held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, finding that the clickwrap process provided sufficient notice and mutual assent under California law. The court also determined that the agreement was not unconscionable and that the state UETA gives electronic signatures the same legal effect as handwritten signatures.

Electronic signature in email revives California statute of limitations. In Thompson v. Timothy Robert Roth, 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 22245 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 4, 2025), the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, overruled a demurrer in a breach-of-contract and related claims case involving the use of electronic communications. The plaintiff alleged that a series of emails, in which the defendant acknowledged amounts owed and signed with his name, constituted a written acknowledgment sufficient to revive the statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 360. The court reviewed the application of the state UETA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.5, to the facts presented. The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the parties’ practice of conducting business via email, and the defendant’s use of his name as an electronic signature in the email correspondence, were sufficient at the pleading stage to support the claim that the statute of limitations was revived by a written acknowledgment. The court found that whether the emails included electronic signatures under the UETA was a question of fact.

Electronically signed lease agreements admissible in New York. In 47-05 Center SPE LLC v. Hack, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4925 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 28, 2025), the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, addressed the admissibility of a lease agreement executed via Docusign in a holdover proceeding. The petitioner introduced a renewal lease bearing the respondent’s electronic signature, and the respondent objected to its admission, arguing that the petitioner failed to authenticate the electronic signature. The court considered the requirements for admitting electronically signed contracts under New York State Technology Law §§ 304 and 306. The court held that an electronically signed contract has the same force and effect as an original writing and is subject to the same evidentiary rules for admission. The court found that testimony regarding the business’s practice of offering leases for execution via Docusign, which requires tenants to provide identifying information, was sufficient to authenticate the lease as a business record.

Docusigned employment agreement upheld in Ohio. In Maddox v. Indochino Apparel United States, Inc., 2025-Ohio-2227, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2165 (Ohio Ct. App. June 26, 2025), the Eighth Appellate District of the Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court’s decision compelling arbitration in an employment dispute involving claims of discrimination and harassment. The employer moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause, which was electronically signed by the employee using Docusign. The employee challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement, arguing that she did not assent to arbitration and that the agreement was unconscionable. The court held that the electronic signature was sufficient to demonstrate assent to the arbitration agreement and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision. The court also found that the employer had not waived its right to arbitration and that the employee failed to meet the burden of proving unconscionability.

Massachusetts court upholds electronic beneficiary designations. In Posner v. Hilton, 2025 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 465 (Mass. App. Ct. June 16, 2025), the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed a dispute over the validity of beneficiary designations made through electronic transactions on a decedent’s life insurance policy, transfer on death account, and individual retirement account. The plaintiff, named as beneficiary via electronic updates, sought declaratory judgment for disbursement of the accounts, while the decedent’s children contested the designations, alleging fraud and questioning the sufficiency of the electronic signature process. The court reviewed evidence including electronic account activity and the timing of the transactions, as well as the parties’ discovery efforts related to electronic records. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the electronic beneficiary designations were valid on their face and that the defendants failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud or improper execution. The court clarified that, under Massachusetts law, a general request for “documents” does not require production of physical electronic storage devices unless specifically requested, and that the burden to prove noncompliance with electronic signature requirements rests with the challenging party.

[View source.]