Electronic signature: judges are rebelling

Date :

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. 

Also read

Date :
The European eIDAS V2 Regulation, published in 2024, is best known for the creation of an European wallet comprising standardized digital identity functions. But it has also added to the list of the trust services, such as electronic signature or electronic seal, a "qualified archiving service" which has just taken on its full materiality with the publication on December 16, 2025 of the implementing regulation defining its reference standard.
Read more
Date :
The Versailles Court of Appeal, in a judgment handed down on November 28, 2023 (CA Versailles, No. 22/06599, Caisse d'Epargne et de Prévoyance IDF v. MX), refused to recognize the reality of the simple electronic signature of a personal loan contract. This is not a rejection, in itself, of the simple level of electronic signature, but rather a sanction for the numerous gaps and imprecisions in the bank's argument in this case.
Read more
Date :
On April 20, 2023, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision (RG No. 22/04814) by which it recognized the validity of the electronic signature of an account agreement concluded between the Caisse de Crédit Mutuel d'Erquy-Pleneuf and a consumer, but on the basis of a totally astonishing motivation.
Read more