3 ms·
I haven't read all the legislation in the world on this, but DocuSign has. They have been summarising legislation into their knowledge base, and proudly showing
by cormacrelf 5y ago
I haven't read all the legislation in the world on this, but DocuSign has. They have been summarising legislation into their knowledge base, and proudly showing off claims that they satisfy the requirements on their country-specific homepages. For example their page on Australian laws is here https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/australia https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/legality/global/austra..., and it summarises (almost verbatim) the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)'s requirements like so:
> A method [...] is used to identify the signer and to indicate the signer’s intention to sign the document;
> The method used is as reliable as appropriate for the purposes of the communication or is proven to identify the person and indicate their intention; and
> The signer consents to the method used, with such consent allowed to be express or inferred from the circumstances.
Guess what? Australian courts apparently accept a name written at the bottom of an email as passing this test as being "as reliable as appropriate" for many situations. The barrier to entry in Australia is essentially zero. Europe has much stricter laws, introduced in the same year, in a two-tier arrangement where the strict version requires something like DocuSign, and moreover that the ability to produce a signature rests in the control of the person it identify, and that person only. (This paper http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLawJl/2017/9.pdf argues for adopting the European approach in Australia.) A sibling comment identifies the US federal government's requirements as being essentially "we must approve individual e-sig services for use with the federal government", which is insane to me but there you go.
> Docusign is not attesting to the contracts they manage
... but they are attesting that they have read the laws about e-signatures, those claims are affirmed by their continued existence, and that's worth a lot of time otherwise spent second-guessing your chosen platform.
I knew roughly the position in Australia, but wasn't aware of the European requirements -- DocuSign has done a medium amount of work researching and documenting their compliance to give you peace of mind, and quite a lot of work complying with the stricter laws that are out there. There's nothing in that that is particularly difficult to replicate, i.e. there's no secret sauce, it's just a lot of work. The overall product (works for doing business with anyone you need it to) is more than the sum of its parts.
- dash2 5y agoThis is a lot of legal knowledge. But not $50bn worth. I'm guessing the real story is DocuSign is trying to worm its way into being a de facto monopoly, maybe by paying enough lobbyists, and the $50bn is the bet that they'll be successful. Multiplied up a bit by the fact that we've been living in a free-money world, where castles in the air get pick-a-number valuations.
- laurent92 5y agoIANAL, but the law says in France, anything with a written name as a signature is valid, although I suppose with limitations, but it is very clear that an email with a signature is enough for child custody agreements, and theoretically an SMS would be enough too, although I don’t know if the SMS has been tested in court. Apart from harassment cases.
- namibj 5y agoGermany differentiates between "Schriftform" and "Textform". The former is "paper, hand signed" or "qualifizierte elektronische Signatur" (qualified electronic signature), the latter "basically SMS and up" (notably excluding voice, AFAIK even if recorded). This has (just searched for a link) been turned into EU law under the term "eIDAS Regulation" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_electronic_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_electronic_signature
- necovek 5y agoQualified electronic signatures are a bit stronger than "SMS and up": from your own Wikipedia link, "a qualified electronic signature is an advanced electronic signature with a qualified digital certificate that has been created by a qualified signature creation device (QSCD)". It mentions 3 requirements right after that sentence (like "data used to create the signature is under the sole control of the signatory"). As such, DocuSign is unlikely to be valid as a qualified electronic signature in Germany or other European countries. But in all of the contractual law ever present in the world, as long as you do not dispute that it's your signature, or there are witnesses to you agreeing to a contract (even verbal ones), a contract would hold as if signed by you.