Electronic signature: overview of case law 2024

Decisions relating to electronic signatures are increasing in number. More than 200 decisions on the subject were handed down by appeal courts in 2024, twice as many as the previous year. This trend is only likely to continue as the use of electronic signatures becomes widespread across all sectors.

Consumer credit continues to be the primary source of this litigation, alongside a few rare cases involving employment contracts or guaranteed residential leases. In the B2B sector, electronic signature disputes remain extremely rare.

A rather favorable reception of the electronic signature

Judges tend to welcome the electronic signature in appeal proceedings, but their reasons vary greatly from one jurisdiction to another. For some, the subject is addressed succinctly and the simple production of the evidence file is enough to convince them of the validity of the signature. For others, the reasons are more detailed but most of the time they are ill‑founded. Very often, confusion arises with the presumed reliable qualified electronic signature, which is currently not used in B to C relationships. We believe that this misunderstanding stems from the distortion between law and practice. In law, the presumed reliable signature of Art. 1367 Al.2 of the Civil Code is the qualified signature of the eIDAS Regulation, composed of two elements: a qualified electronic signature certificate and a qualified electronic signature creation device, the specifications of which set out in the eIDAS Regulation are purely functional and do not refer to any standard or technical specification. In practice, qualified service quality is granted based on compliance with specific standards. Knowledge of these standards is of paramount importance, but it is difficult for lawyers unfamiliar with the field to access.

This confusion is nevertheless worrying because one may wonder how the judges will react when it is a "real" qualified signature that has been implemented by the professional, in the hope of undisputed judicial recognition of his electronic signature which will not occur since the judges already think that they are dealing with qualified signatures...

Some rejections

In some cases, the judge rejects the electronic signature of the document, and this is most often the direct consequence of a poor presentation of the process by the professional. But it is sometimes also for legitimate reasons: clear cases of identity theft, or obvious failure to identify the signatories, for example.

A stabilization of what the judges expect

What judges expect to demonstrate the reliability of the electronic signature process is now standard: the evidence file associated with the signed contract, any omission in this regard being punishable. The file must be legible, significant of the operation, and include a common reference with the signed document because judges see it as the “link” mentioned in Art. 1367 al.2 of the Civil Code; certificates of conformity with the standards applicable to the process implemented; documents attesting to the identification of the signatory; and if possible a generic explanatory guide to the process implemented. And the production of extrinsic elements tending to corroborate the signature of the document is a significant security if the judge is not convinced by the rest.

See our full article “Electronic signature – overview of case law 2024” in EXPERTISES February 2025, p.16