3 ms·

In Europe, including the UK and EEA, there is the eIDAS regulation, which outlines the requirement for eSignatures (amongst other things). In order for a signa

In Europe, including the UK and EEA, there is the eIDAS regulation, which outlines the requirement for eSignatures (amongst other things). In order for a signature to be recognised, it has to meet one of three trust levels 1. Electronic signature: this is basically something that puts a distinguishing mark on a file. 2. Advanced electronic signature: these use cryptography according to the specifications set out in the regulation, but anyone can make them. There are some requirements about how a person’s identity is linked to their signature. 3. Qualified electronic signature: these are advanced electronic signatures which have been produced with a recognised trust service provider. Each country has a list of trust service providers, and each other country mutually recognises their trust lists. It is a bit more detailed than that, but in general, simple transactions can pretty much use any electronic signature (but this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The uk generally doesn’t need anything fancier than docusign). In order for something to be completely watertight, it needs to be a qualifying electronic signature. In order for these features to be useful in Europe, google will need to meet the requirements of the regulations, and specify a trust level.

danielrhodes 3y ago
Ultimately where this matters is if one party contests the validity of a contract. I'm not sure how it works in the EU, but in the US that would mean a court would ultimately make that decision. To that end, they could decide that two people agreeing in an email thread is enough. It's all about your risk appetite. However, notice that Google has not said they are compliant with any regulation.
- pkaye 3y ago
  Apparently in Canada a thumbs up emoji is valid as a signature for a contract. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-thumbs-up-emoji-sign-contract https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-t...
  - viscountchocula 3y ago
    Not is: can be
  - b112 3y ago
    Not a signature, just that he accepted the deal. And note that he had accepted deals the same way before. Accepting the terms, just as a handshake, on a deal, can bind one.
    - angry_octet 3y ago
      It’s more than a handshake deal — they are making their mark on a contract. This stems from the time before wide literacy and the ability to write, where people would make an X mark on the paper. Sometimes neither party could not read the actual contract, which was written by scribes. So the emoji is a mark. https://www.swanngalleries.com/news/autographs/2023/01/the-signers-mark-signatures-of-the-unlettered-part-i/ https://www.swanngalleries.com/news/autographs/2023/01/the-s...
      - b112 3y ago
        That was not the court decision. The newspapers are giving snippets of the judge's decision, out of context. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/farmer-ordered-to-pay-after-judge-says-thumbs-up-emoji-amounts-to-contract-acceptance https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/farmer-ordered-to-pay-a... The nuance here us that: - the emoji was bring used to reply with an OK - this was used in the past on other contracts between the two Note that judge looked into the meaning of the emoji, looked into how it was interpreted before, and said "but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature,”‘ Keene wrote in his decision." Note purposes of a signature, not signature. FYI, making a mark is still legal, judges know it, yet that language was not used. And you don't look into how a emoji was used by other people, if it is being used as a uniquoe "mark" aka "signature" aka "trade mark". Because a mark, a signature is unique. An emoji is as un-unique as a word such as YES. This is also why someone cannot trademark a colour, or a generic font. Trademarks aka marks aka signatures mist be unique. In this case, the decision was "he accepted the deal", just as a handshake or verbal OK.
- josefx 3y ago
  As far as I understand it is mostly relevant when the electronic signature is already explicitly required beforehand. For example some government projects might require a valid electronic signature on offers among a million other things. In this case the electronic signature isn't important because it is a signature, but because it is a requirement and missing any requirement can get your offer and even already signed contracts thrown out if a competitor catches wind of it.
londons_explore 3y ago
This isn't the case for most agreements. Most agreements have no 'form' requirements - ie. you could write it on a napkin at a restaurant. As long as both parties believe they are making a legally binding agreement, then they have made a legally binding agreement. Use of technology doesn't change that. The only time a court would throw out a signature made online is if the online platform was somehow deceiving the parties - for example by showing different text to each side when they click 'i agree'.
- galvin 3y ago
  The issue isn't necessarily the form of the agreement, it's verifying the identity of the signatories. If you can't see the other person signing the agreement, you need to verify that the right person is signing it. It's much the same issues that exist with simple passwords versus 2FA; shared accounts, piracy, identity theft, etc. eIDAS is a set of standards for verifying identity that is backed by law. It allows businesses to follow protocols (some similar to 2FA) with the assurance that it will be held up in court.
mistrial9 3y ago
what is the legal name for "monopoly company requires ID and location to view common document" ?
- angry_octet 3y ago
  Capitalism.

danielrhodes 3y ago

Ultimately where this matters is if one party contests the validity of a contract. I'm not sure how it works in the EU, but in the US that would mean a court would ultimately make that decision. To that end, they could decide that two people agreeing in an email thread is enough. It's all about your risk appetite. However, notice that Google has not said they are compliant with any regulation.

pkaye 3y ago
Apparently in Canada a thumbs up emoji is valid as a signature for a contract. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-thumbs-up-emoji-sign-contract https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-t...
- viscountchocula 3y ago
  Not is: can be
- b112 3y ago
  Not a signature, just that he accepted the deal. And note that he had accepted deals the same way before. Accepting the terms, just as a handshake, on a deal, can bind one.
  - angry_octet 3y ago
    It’s more than a handshake deal — they are making their mark on a contract. This stems from the time before wide literacy and the ability to write, where people would make an X mark on the paper. Sometimes neither party could not read the actual contract, which was written by scribes. So the emoji is a mark. https://www.swanngalleries.com/news/autographs/2023/01/the-signers-mark-signatures-of-the-unlettered-part-i/ https://www.swanngalleries.com/news/autographs/2023/01/the-s...
    - b112 3y ago
      That was not the court decision. The newspapers are giving snippets of the judge's decision, out of context. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/farmer-ordered-to-pay-after-judge-says-thumbs-up-emoji-amounts-to-contract-acceptance https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/farmer-ordered-to-pay-a... The nuance here us that: - the emoji was bring used to reply with an OK - this was used in the past on other contracts between the two Note that judge looked into the meaning of the emoji, looked into how it was interpreted before, and said "but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature,”‘ Keene wrote in his decision." Note purposes of a signature, not signature. FYI, making a mark is still legal, judges know it, yet that language was not used. And you don't look into how a emoji was used by other people, if it is being used as a uniquoe "mark" aka "signature" aka "trade mark". Because a mark, a signature is unique. An emoji is as un-unique as a word such as YES. This is also why someone cannot trademark a colour, or a generic font. Trademarks aka marks aka signatures mist be unique. In this case, the decision was "he accepted the deal", just as a handshake or verbal OK.
josefx 3y ago
As far as I understand it is mostly relevant when the electronic signature is already explicitly required beforehand. For example some government projects might require a valid electronic signature on offers among a million other things. In this case the electronic signature isn't important because it is a signature, but because it is a requirement and missing any requirement can get your offer and even already signed contracts thrown out if a competitor catches wind of it.

londons_explore 3y ago

This isn't the case for most agreements. Most agreements have no 'form' requirements - ie. you could write it on a napkin at a restaurant. As long as both parties believe they are making a legally binding agreement, then they have made a legally binding agreement. Use of technology doesn't change that. The only time a court would throw out a signature made online is if the online platform was somehow deceiving the parties - for example by showing different text to each side when they click 'i agree'.

galvin 3y ago
The issue isn't necessarily the form of the agreement, it's verifying the identity of the signatories. If you can't see the other person signing the agreement, you need to verify that the right person is signing it. It's much the same issues that exist with simple passwords versus 2FA; shared accounts, piracy, identity theft, etc. eIDAS is a set of standards for verifying identity that is backed by law. It allows businesses to follow protocols (some similar to 2FA) with the assurance that it will be held up in court.

mistrial9 3y ago

what is the legal name for "monopoly company requires ID and location to view common document" ?

angry_octet 3y ago
Capitalism.