Electronic signature: judges are rebelling

The reasons for refusals are very homogeneous: lack of production of a proof file and/or "proof of an electronic signature, even if it is simple, implies more than the mere mention of an electronic signature at the bottom of a document, even accompanied by documents establishing the existence of relations between the parties" (CA Riom 19 March 2025 RG n° 24/00497; CA Douai 27 March 2025, RG n° 22/05040 and RG n° 22/05041; CA Paris 3 April 2025, RG n° 23/19316; CA Rouen 10 April 2025, RG n° 24/01774).

• The impact of the production of a reasonably convincing evidence file on the judicial recognition of the electronic signature is not new. Judges are now firmly committed to it and it is an essential part of this type of dispute.
• What is new is the assertion taken up almost word for word by different jurisdictions (Riom, Douai, Paris, Rouen) according to which the mere mention "electronic signature" in the contract is not sufficient to establish its reality. This is obvious, but the important thing to remember is that judges are beginning to have a level of maturity on the subject that allows them not to be fooled by poorly put together and incomplete files.

 The electronic signature is not only a boring technical subject to be treated with contempt – it is also a societal issue, touching on the complex areas of remote identification, consent, and the exact role of "trusted service providers" depending on the level of signature implemented. Legal professionals must meet this challenge.