A California court of law recently sent a significant sentence. California ruled that documents signed by large electronic signature companies were not admissible.
While this sentence does not question all electronic signature companies, it is an example of what Esignly insists on. Electronic signatures are valuable because they can be used to support them in litigation.
It is important to remember that before we analyze a particular case, There are many types of electronic signatures that go beyond simple, advanced, or qualified legal definitions.(or their equivalents in other world laws). We find digital signature products and services that are "traditional" based on digital certificates (centralized, local or remote), handwritten electronic signature systems or signature services that are based upon evidence collection (remote signing). Each type of signature has a different legal weight and each case is different in terms of how the evidence will be used. We believe that it is wrong to try and "straighten them all" in the concepts advanced, simple or qualified signatures.Since, aside from the rarely used qualified signature that is highly cited, 99 percent of signatures will need testing when it comes time to do so.
We analyze the case in question corresponds to the type signature that is based on evidence collection or, as we like it to be called, "Signature Based on Evidence Collection" Remotesignature It is a.Based on the creation a log evidence this happens during the signing process. The evidence can be taken and analyzed to determine if the signature could be attributable to a person. It is basically the normal way of proceeding in Law. In a judicial process the parties will always need to prove their claims using evidence. We must present evidence to support or reinforce our thesis if we are able to prove that there has been an infraction.
This judicial sentence has a problem. The evidence collected during the process is inconclusive, limited, and inconclusive. According to the sentence, its not properly presented in the judicial proceeding. Any litigation may require that any evidence be presented to prove something happened. In this instance, the client has consented to the contract. It is difficult to prove authorship if these evidences are only limited to the fact that an electronic message has been sent to an email address and that someone clicked on the button to sign.
eSignly Remote's email is only the beginning.It is one additional piece of evidence but it is not the strongest: in this case, the email, the exact time at which it was sent, his IP address, his geographical location (if he expressly agrees), their technological environment (OS, browser), and they will receive an SMS with a unique number (to their personal mobile phones). Finally, they will need to sign their signature. Although it isn't as strong as the SMS, it provides some assumptions. Therefore, the legal value of an email or a rubric is not in the SMS. It's in the whole set of evidence we capture and send to our client in a report. This allows them to defend the report when necessary.
The key is not in the signature model being analysed, which can be classified as a signature by evidences. But in its implementation, and above all in the quality and quantity of evidence collected during the process. This sentence states that the methods used during the process were not sufficient to establish the authenticity of the signer.
The judge, in this case, specifies that the defending party must prove the validity of the document and that the only evidence provided is the IP address.
This leads us to examine another important difference between eSignly and other seemingly similar services. It is not only that Esignly is extremely careful with the quality and quantity of evidence collected during the process, but also that, in the event that a signed signature is required to be proven, we guarantee that the client receives the best legal advice and accompaniment.