Case law on electronic signatures in 2025

The case law on electronic signatures in 2025 has grown and diversified, with some 200 decisions rendered at the level of the Courts of Appeal. These decisions still mainly concern consumer loans, in which the borrower is almost never represented. But diversification is underway, in line with the generalization of the electronic signature in common use in both B to B and B to C. Professional leasing, real estate loans, guarantees, employment contracts, etc. are beginning to arrive before the courts. At the date of this article, the beginning of 2026 only confirms this broadening of the areas of electronic signature litigation.

Below, we delve deeper into the topics that are of interest to professionals who implement e‑signature.

• In what cases do judges refuse to recognize the electronic signature?

CASE 1: DOUBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE SIGNATORY: FRAUD OR POORLY PRESENTED FILE

When it comes to electronic signatures, there are two situations of identity fraud: where the signatory is acting in good faith and has been abused in the family circle or by a convincing fraudster, and where the signatory is acting in bad faith and is trying to evade his commitment. As soon as such fraud is invoked, the judges work to ensure consistency between the factual elements of the file and the identification elements appearing in the evidentiary file: email address, telephone number, IP address, and they also analyze the credibility of the identity documents produced. Their analysis is often relevant, and it highlights the current weakness of the identification procedures commonly used, which are based almost exclusively on an email address and a mobile phone number that we are rarely sure correspond to the alleged signatory.

It is even more striking to note that judges sometimes refuse to recognize the electronic signature for the sole reason that the reliable identification of the signatory is not demonstrated by the documents produced in this case, even though no identity fraud has been invoked. This is often more a matter of a weakness in the litigation presentation than a real flaw in the signature process, which highlights a subject that is largely underestimated by the professionals who set up electronic signature pathways: business teams think upstream about the implementation of the most optimized processes possible; but downstream, The poor mastery of the presentation of the file to the litigation can ruin all the design efforts.

CASE 2: ABSENCE OF A VISIBLE LINK BETWEEN THE ACT AND THE EVIDENCE FILE

Judges have become accustomed to considering that the "link" characteristic of an electronic signature, imposed by Art. 1367 of the Civil Code, is materialized by a common reference appearing both on the signed deed and on the associated evidence file.

As this requirement is radical, the absence of this common reference is almost systematically sanctioned by the rejection of the signature.

And needless to say, if the evidence file itself is not produced, which sometimes happens, the (negative) result is almost guaranteed.

CASE 3: ABSTRUSE EVIDENCE FILE

Magistrates are annoyed to be presented with pages made up of "successions of unusable codes", to use the words of the president of the ninth chamber of Pole 4 of the Paris Court of Appeal. In such a case, the penalty is the same as if the evidence file were not produced at all.

• What should a good electronic signature file include in litigation?

The composition of a file relating to an electronic signature challenge has been stable for several years: copy of the signed document; a legible and well‑filled evidence file, including a common reference with the signed deed; Certificates of compliance relevant to the signature service used. documents attesting to the identity of the signatory; if possible an explanatory note of the process implemented; extrinsic elements supporting the reality of the signature of the deed.

It should be added that in 2025, many judges noted that the mere mention "electronically signed" on the deed was not in itself sufficient to convince him.

• Little at stake in electronic archiving

Although the integrity of the signed document is an element consubstantial with its probative value (Art. 1366 Civil Code), this condition does not arouse any particular interest on the part of judges. Mostly, they mention the existence of an archiving certificate when it is produced, without drawing any explicit conclusions.

• Distressing and common confusion between qualified and unqualified electronic signatures

It is not easy to characterize a qualified signature and to produce evidence of it, and we see this regularly. A qualified electronic signature is based on a qualified signature certificate and a qualified signature creation device. The certificate is usually considered, for which it is easy to obtain the certificate of conformity with the applicable ETSI standard (ETSI EN 319 411‑2). When we get to the signature creation system, everyone goes down, and we have to admit that fishing for information is not easy, for reasons that are known but which we will not go into here. Except for the few specialists in the field in the legal world, lawyers and judges are in the same confusion and see qualified signatures where there is none, which is very unfortunate. What will happen when professionals have implemented real qualified signatures at great expense, thinking they are sheltering themselves from any evidentiary debate?

Our full article on this subject was published in EXPERTISES: "Electronic signature – Overview of case law 2025", January 2026, p.21