15 U.S.C. § 7001

Section 7001(a)(1)'s general validity rule does not require a county clerk to accept real-estate filings bearing printed images of electronic signatures because the provision is likely limited to transactional documents, and a filing is not itself a transaction.

Opinion No. · filed 2004-08-05(a)(1)

We conclude, like our counterparts in California and New York, first, that the E-Sign Act does not require a county clerk to accept real estate filings that contain printed images of signatures rather than original pen and ink signatures. While section 7001 of the E-Sign Act is not clearly limited to transactional documents, we believe that a court probably would construe it to be so.

Section 7001(a)(2) gives an electronic signature legal effect and prevents its validity from being denied solely because it is electronic.

Mead v. MOLONEY SECURITIES CO., INC. · filed 2008-12-09(a)(2)

However, the record reflects that Moloney Securities electronically signed and dated this section of the U-4 Form on July 11, 2002. Federal law recognizes and gives effect to electronic signatures, 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(2) (2008), and the U-4 Form itself defines “signature” to include “a manual signature or an electronically transmitted equivalent.” The Meads do not offer nor do we find support for their claims that an electronic signature is invalid for purposes of forming a binding and enforceable arbitration agreement or that Moloney Securities was required to inform the Meads of its intent to electronically file their applications.

Section 7001(g) treats a statutory signature-notarization, acknowledgment, verification, or oath requirement as satisfied when the authorized person's electronic signature and required information are attached to or logically associated with the record.

Martin v. Portexit Corp. · filed 2012-06-21(g)

Notably, E-SIGN provides that where a statute requires a signature to be notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, “that requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts, together with all other information required to be included . . . , is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record” (15 USC § 7001 [g]).

Section 7001(a) provides that a contract cannot be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.

Fox v. Computer World Services Corp. · filed 2013-02-01(a)

Fourth, that Fox received and signed the Agreement electronically does not render it unconscionable: “a contract . . . may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a).

Section 7001(a)(1) bars denying a signature, contract, or other transaction record legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is electronic, for transactions affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

Dyson v. Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc. · filed 2015-08-27(a)(1)

Under the E-Sign Act, “with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” a “signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1). ... Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff may employ its proposed electronic signature method for execution of consent forms.

Section 7001 gives electronic contracts and records legal effect in qualifying interstate or foreign-commerce transactions, but it does not apply retroactively to transactions before its effective date.

Cloud Corporation v. Hasbro Inc. · filed 2003-01-23

That would be conclusive in this case — had the e-mails been sent after the Act took effect in 2000. But they were sent in 1996. ... it is presumed not to apply retroactively.

Section 7001(a)(1) bars denying an electronic record or contract legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.

Sawyer v. Mills · filed 2009-11-02(a)(1)

Therefore, contrary to Sawyer’s assertions, the Statute of Frauds’ writing requirement is not preempted by E-SIGN in this case.

Section 7001(a) prevents an electronic signature, contract, or record from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic.

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems Inc. v. American Home Realty Network Inc. · filed 2012-08-24(a)

The MRIS TOU constitutes credible evidence that MRIS’s users intended to assign their copyrights to MRIS through the electronic submissions of photographs, which would satisfy the relevant provisions of ESIGN. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the assignments of copyrights in the individual photographs were void.

Section 7001(a) prevents an electronic signature, contract, or record from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic.

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems Inc. v. American Home Realty Network Inc. · filed 2012-11-13(a)

The Court therefore relied on its conclusion that the assignments were not invalid in holding that MRIS was likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement claims with respect to the photographs.

Section 7001(a) prevents an electronic signature or record from being denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form.

Miller v. Quest Diagnostics · filed 2015-01-28(a)

Under the E-Sign Act, electronic signatures are presumptively valid: ... Plaintiffs are incorrect; an employment application and authorization to obtain a consumer report is clearly “relating to the conduct of business” within the scope of the statute.

Section 7001 recognizes that an electronic signature or electronic contract cannot be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic or lacks a wet-ink signature.

Tillman v. Navient Solutions LLC · filed 2020-06-15

Contracts, however, may be signed electronically and are not rendered void solely by the lack of a “wet-ink” signature. See 15 USC § 7001. Here, the promissory note contains an electronic signature, so the plaintiff must allege a factual basis sufficient to support his claim that the signature was not his.

Section 7001 generally bars denying an electronic signature legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is electronic, unless another provision provides otherwise.

Reynolds v. Google LLC · filed 2022-02-02

Reynolds, though, provides no support for this argument, which is contrary to federal law establishing a general rule of validity for electronic signatures. See 15 U.S.C. § 7001 (stating that unless provided otherwise, “a signature . . . may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form”).

Section 7001(a) allows an electronic acknowledgement that objectively manifests intent to sign to serve as a valid signature for a statute-of-frauds requirement.

Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari · filed 2022-03-31(a)

Rather, as the Court previously held (and would hold today if the issue were still open), the undisputed evidence proffered by Apprio showed that Zaccari acknowledged the PIIA, that Zaccari intended to acknowledge the PIIA, and that acknowledgment constituted a signature for purposes of the E-Sign Act. Mem. Op. at 13–14.

Section 7001(a)(1) bars denying a signature, contract, or related record legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is electronic, for transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

Kennedy v. Equifax Information Services LLC · filed 2023-12-13(a)(1)

Electronic signatures are valid and enforceable. Under the E–Sign Act, “with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” a “signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1).

Section 7001(a)(1) provides that a signature cannot be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form.

Mizel v. Unified Capital Partners 3 LLC · filed 2022-08-15(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court holds that no reasonable jury could conclude that the August 23 email was unsigned.

Section 7001(a)(1) permits putative collective-action members to electronically sign their consent forms.

Green v. Perry's Restaurants LTD · filed 2022-11-07(a)(1)

Putative collective action members may electronically sign their consent forms.

Section 7001(a) requires electronic signatures and records to receive legal effect, including when a law requires a contract to be written and signed, unless an exception applies.

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc. · filed 2013-07-17(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)

The E-Sign Act, aiming to bring uniformity to patchwork state legislation governing electronic signatures and records, mandates that no signature be denied legal effect simply because it is in electronic form. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1). Additionally, “a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” Id. § 7001(a)(2). ... Although the E-Sign Act states several explicit limitations, none apply here. The Act provides that it “does . . . limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed by a statute, regulation, or rule of law . . . other than a requirement that contracts or other records be written, signed, or in nonelectric form[.]” Id. § 7001(b). Because Section 204(a) requires transfers be “written” and “signed,” a plain reading of Section 7001(b) indicates that Congress intended the provisions of the E-Sign Act to “limit, alter, or otherwise affect” Section 204(a). ... We therefore hold that an electronic agreement may effect a valid transfer of copyright interests under Section 204 of the Copyright Act.

Section 7001 prevents a record or signature from being denied legal effect or validity solely because it is in electronic form.

190204-2946 · filed 2019-07-30

The Act only specifies that a record may not be denied legal effect or validity solely because the record or signature was in electronic form. 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 (2007 and 2008). Here, VA denied the validity of the Veteran’s May 2007 form as a claim because it was rendered incomplete in the absence of a signature.

Section 7001(a) bars denying an electronic signature, contract, or record legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form, including an e-mailed arbitration agreement.

Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. · filed 2005-05-23(a)

By its plain terms, the E-Sign Act prohibits any interpretation of the FAA's written provision requirement that would preclude giving legal effect to an agreement solely on the basis that it was in electronic form.

Section 7001(a) gives electronic signatures and contracts legal effect despite their electronic form, but does not create a private right of action; it may instead provide a defense to state-law treatment of electronic mortgage assignments.

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. · filed 2013-11-06(a)

No provision of the subject federal act, nor any case interpreting it, recognizes such a private right of action based on the electronic form of a document. At best, the federal law provides a defense to New York’s application of its tax law to deny favorable treatment to E-Sign mortgage and note assignments, and even more remotely, perhaps, a defense to plaintiffs’ claims here.

Section 7001(a)(2) prevents a contract in or affecting interstate commerce from being denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used to form it.

Young v. Pizza · filed 2020-02-04(a)(2)

The fact that Young did not handwrite his signature on a paper copy of the agreement is immaterial—electronic signatures are afforded full legal recognition under both Missouri and federal law. ... Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(2) (“A contract relating to such transaction [in or affecting interstate commerce] may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation”)

Section 7001(a)(1) gives electronic signatures the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as paper signatures.

Macias v. Catapult Painting LLC · filed 2020-10-22(a)(1)

Electronic signatures have the same “legal effect, validity, and enforceability” as paper signatures, 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1), and “commercial transactions are routinely cemented by electronic submission.” Mraz v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2014 WL 5018862, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2014). The potential class members may opt in to the class using an electronic signature.

Section 7001(a) does not create a private right of action based on a document’s electronic form and therefore cannot support the requested declaratory judgment.

Rigsby v. GoDaddy Incorporated · filed 2021-06-14(a)

... Further, “[n]o provision of the [E-SIGN Act], nor any case interpreting it, recognizes such a private right of action based on the electronic form of a document.” Yoshimura v. Takahashi, 446 F. Supp. 3d 644, 652 (D. Haw. 2020) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the E-SIGN Act does not provide a basis for the declaratory judgment Plaintiffs seek.

Section 7001 gives an electronic signature the same legal effect as a handwritten signature.

Durm v. IQOR Holdings US LLC · filed 2022-01-24

Under both the Ohio Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1306.01, et seg., and the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN”), 15 U.S.C. § 7001, an electronic signature has the same effect and is just as legally binding as a handwritten signature. ... Plaintiff's electronic signature is valid and the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable.

Section 7001(a)(1) prevents a signature, contract, or related record from being denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is electronic.

de Jesus v. UnitedHealth Group · filed 2023-01-23(a)(1)

But “a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1). Defendant represents that Plaintiff accepted the Agreement as a condition to Defendant’s offer of employment and both parties mutually agreed to arbitrate disputes. (Doc. 11 at 4). The Court agrees with Defendant and finds the Agreement constitutes a valid contract between the parties.

Section 7001 prevents a signature, contract, or record in an interstate transaction from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic.

Kalish v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC · filed 2023-11-20(a)

The purpose of the E-SIGN act is to “protect transactions from legal challenges that are solely based on the electronic form of the agreement.” ... To further that purpose, the Court will not vacate the award under the E-SIGN Act based on their electronic form.

Section 7001(a)(2) prevents a contract relating to an interstate-commerce transaction from being denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.

Prentice v. Newrez, LLC · filed 2023-12-18(a)(2)

Contracts may now be signed electronically and are not unenforceable solely because they lack “wet-ink” signatures. ... Since UWM’s electronic, typewritten name appears on both the note and the mortgage there is no reason to invalidate them for lacking the requisite signatures.

Section 7001(a) prevents an electronic signature, contract, or record in a covered interstate transaction from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic.

Bullock v. Hana Security Services · filed 2024-02-14(a)

The E-Sign Act says that “a signature, contract, or other record” regarding “any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce . . . may not be denied legal effect . . . solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a). It does not supplant other contract-law rules or create a freestanding private right of action. Id. § 7001(b); Levy-Tatum v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 15-cv-3794, 2016 WL 75231 *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2016); cf. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001).

Section 7001(a) prevents a transaction, contract, or record from being denied legal effect solely because it was formed using an electronic signature or electronic record, and the court held that clicking an “Acknowledge” button qualified as an electronic signature in this case.

Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari · filed 2024-06-21(a)

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-Sign Act”) provides that in “any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” a “signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect . . . solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a). As relevant here, the E-Sign Act also defines an “electronic signature” as “an electric sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” Id. § 7006(5). Here, when Zaccari clicked the “Acknowledge” button, he engaged an “electric . . . process” that was “attached to or logically associated with” the Agreement and that falls within the expansive statutory definition of a signature. See id.

Section 7001(a)(1) does not prohibit an agency from requiring telephonic verification of an electronically signed application when the failure to complete that verification, rather than the electronic form of the signature alone, causes the denial of legal effect.

United Spinal Association, Inc. v. Saul · filed 2024-07-11(a)(1)

Applying that reasoning to the E-SIGN Act, the electronic signature must be the reason why the agency denies its legal effect. See id. Here, however, the SSA would only deny an SSDI application with an electronic signature if the applicant failed to telephonically verify the application. Thus, the electronic signature is not in and of itself the proximate cause of the agency’s denial of a signature’s legal effect. The SSA’s practice of requiring claimants to telephonically verify SSDI applications submitted by third parties remotely therefore does not violate the E-SIGN Act.

Section 7001 bars denying an electronic signature legal effect solely because it is in electronic form, supporting its treatment as legally equivalent to a handwritten signature.

BREWER v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC · filed 2025-05-27

Under Michigan law and federal law, “electronic signatures have the same legal effect as handwritten ones.” Richardson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.3d 698, 705 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837); Hardaway v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, No. 23-12246, 2024 WL 2271826, at *3 (B.D. Mich. May 20, 2024) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 7001; Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.837).

Section 7001(a)(1) provides that a signature may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form.

Flakes v. Carr · filed 2022-02-22(a)(1)

And in other contexts, Congress has made clear that a signature “may not be denied legal effect … solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1).

Section 7001(e) does not require a different-format copy of an electronic authorization when the original transaction’s contents are undisputed and can be accurately reproduced.

Blatt v. Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. · filed 2017-02-17(e)

The Court finds that § 7001(e) of the E-SIGN Act does not apply to Blatt’s situation because Blatt is not disputing the contents of the original phone call in which Blatt gave his authorization; Blatt has stipulated to exactly what the IVR message said, that he agreed to- the terms in the message, and that he pressed “1” to confirm his enrollment in the DirectPay program.

Section 7001 gives electronic contracts and records legal effect in interstate or foreign commerce, but is presumed not to apply retroactively to transactions predating its effective date.

Cloud Corporation v. Hasbro Incorporated · filed 2002-12-26

But they were sent in 1996. The Act does not purport to be applicable to transactions that occurred before its effective date, and, not being procedural, ... it is presumed not to apply retroactively.

Section 7001 treats emails as writings for interstate-commerce transactions and prevents a legal writing requirement from excluding electronic records solely because they are electronic.

In Re Cafeteria Operators L.P. · filed 2003-08-29(a), (b)(1)

Thus, in transactions involving interstate commerce, e-mails constitute “writings.” The transactions between Cherrco and the Debtor occurred in 2002, and clearly qualify for the requirement in § 7001(a) that the transaction is in or affects interstate commerce. Thus, the emails between the parties satisfy the writing requirement, to the extent that one is required under PACA.

Section 7001(c)(1) permits an electronic record to satisfy a legal writing requirement for transaction information when the consumer affirmatively consents and has a right to withdraw that consent.

Quero v. Rosenfelt · filed 2021-03-25(c)(1)

As the Report properly notes, the E-Sign Act provides, in relevant part, that “if a statute regulation, or other rule of law requires that information relating to a transaction . . . be provided or made available to a consumer in writing, the use of an electronic record to provide or make available . . . such information satisfies the requirement that such information be in writing” if certain requirements are met, including the consumer’s affirmative consent and right to withdraw. (Report at 16) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1).)

Section 7001(d)(3) treats an electronic record meeting section 7001(d)(1)'s requirements as satisfying a rule requiring a record to be retained in its original form.

People v. McFarlan · filed 2002-04-04(d)(3)

Under E-Sign, the “record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. (15 USC § 7006 [9].) E-Sign further provides in determining what is an original document, that “[i]f a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires a * * * record * * * to be * * * retained in its original form, or provides consequences if the * * * record is not provided, available, or retained in its original form, that statute, regulation, or rule of law is satisfied by an electronic record” meeting the requests of 15 USC § 7001 (d) (1). (15 USC § 7001 [d] [3].) This is the same result for the photo array under ESRA.

Section 7001(a)(1) protects an electronic signature, contract, or record from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic, but the Act does not require a private party to accept electronic signatures.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Prusky · filed 2005-07-22(a)(1), (b)(2)

The purpose of the Act is to protect transactions from legal challenges that are solely based on the electronic form of the agreement. As the statute makes clear, the use or acceptance of electronic signatures is not mandatory. ... Therefore, because the E-Sign Act does not require Prudential to accept electronic signatures, Prusky’s counterclaim based on this statute must be dismissed.

Section 7001(b)(2) does not require a person to agree to use or accept electronic signatures.

Altobelli · filed 2025-10-17(b)(2)

However, even if that statute applied in this case, it further provides that it does not “require a person to agree to use or accept … electronic signatures.” Id. ¶ 7001(b)(2); see Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Prusky, 413 F. Supp. 2d 489, 494 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (“As the statute makes clear, the use or acceptance of electronic signatures is not mandatory.”). The Parties here agreed not to use or accept electronic signatures on the opt-out requests. Thus, this argument fails.

Section 7001 gives electronic signatures and records legal effect and allows an electronic record to satisfy an original-record requirement when it can be retained and accurately reproduced.

Bergenstock v. legalzoom.com Inc. · filed 2015-06-23(a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(1), (d)(3), and (e)

The E-Sign Act mandates that, if any law requires an original record of a transaction or contract related to a transaction, that requirement is met by retaining an accurate record of the information in a manner that is accessible and capable of being reproduced.

Section 7001(a) prevents a signature, contract, or record from being denied legal effect solely because it is electronic, and likewise protects contracts formed using electronic signatures or electronic records.

Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari · filed 2021-06-01(a)

This argument overlooks the E-SIGN Act, which says that “[n]otwithstanding any statute . . . (1) a signature, contract, or other record . . . may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and (2) a contract . . . may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a). ... By acknowledging the Agreement with a click of his mouse, Zaccari carried out a “process . . . logically associated with” the Agreement, and did so intentionally. Apprio has produced an electronic record of this process, Pl.’s SUMF Ex. K, the validity of which Zaccari does not dispute, Resp. SUMF ¶¶ 22–23 (citing Pl.’s SUMF Ex. K). Because of the E-SIGN Act, this evidence is as good as a written signature. Hence, even if Zaccari were correct that “any doubt . . . is construed” in his favor, his acknowledgment left no doubt about his consent. The Copyright Act’s statute of frauds therefore does not bar the assignment of his copyright interest.

Section 7001(a)(1) provides that an electronic signature, contract, or record relating to a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce cannot be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.

Marban v. Holiday Station Stores, LLC · filed 2025-05-22(a)(1)

Electronic signatures are presumptively valid. See, e.g.,15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1) (“[A] signature, contract, or other record relating to [any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce] may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.”).

Section 7001(a) provides that a signature, contract, or record cannot be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic.

Turner v. Iem International, Inc. · filed 2025-07-25(a)

And a “signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect . . . solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.” ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between IEM and Turner.

Section 7001(c)(3) provides that failure to obtain electronic consent or confirmation of consent, by itself, does not invalidate a contract’s legal effectiveness, validity, or enforceability.

Herrera v. Navient Corporations · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

Moreover, even if a private right of action did exist under the E-Sign Act, the Act itself provides that a “failure to obtain electronic consent or confirmation of consent by that consumer” is not by itself fatal to the legal effectiveness, validity, or enforceability of a contract. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(3).

The Electronic Signatures Act does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims against it.

Sole v. DeVos · filed 2020-08-20

Congress has not waived the United States’ sovereign immunity under Florida statutory law or the Electronic Signatures Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim against the United States is barred by sovereign immunity.

Section 7001(c) permits electronic delivery of information otherwise required in writing when the consumer receives the specified disclosures and affirmatively consents; the Act provides no standalone private remedy for failure to obtain that consent.

Grays v. Auto Mart USA, LLC · filed 2020-10-26(c)

Here, the Act clearly reflects a Congressional intent to favor the use of electronic records by deeming them to have the same effect as written ones. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a) (requiring that records in electronic form be given legal effect). At the same time, Congress sought to balance the advancement of electronic recordkeeping against the possibility that electronic records might be foisted on unwilling consumers who preferred written ones. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(b)(2) (clarifying that the statute does not “require any person to agree to use or accept electronic records”). Thus, the operative portion of the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c), provides that, with regard to laws that require a person to deliver information in writing, an electronic version of that written document will suffice if the recipient has given the appropriate consent.

Section 7001(c)(1) requires specified consumer disclosures for electronic consent only when another statute, regulation, or rule requires transaction information to be provided or made available in writing.

Reinert v. Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC · filed 2020-11-17(c)(1)

However, the E-Sign Act only requires that consent be accompanied by certain disclosures under specific statutes. Consumer disclosures must be made to obtain an electronic record of consent “if a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires that information relating to a transaction or transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce be provided or made available to a consumer in writing.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001 (C)(1). However, Plaintiff has not shown that the TCPA is one of them. See Morris v. Modernize, Inc., No. AU-17-CA-00963-SS, 2018 WL 7076744, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2018) (finding that the E-Sign Act disclosures do not apply to the TCPA). Therefore, Plaintiff’s consent was valid.

Section 7001(c)(1) provides that when another law requires transaction information to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies that writing requirement.

Johnson v. Expert, Inc. · filed 2024-05-20(c)(1)

The Court observes that Plaintiff’s broad claim that “no…electronic signature can be effective between the parties” unless the consumer is given an e-sign consent form is not supported by his list of out-of-circuit citations nor by the text of the E-SIGN Act. The Act states that its consent provisions are required only in the following circumstance: [I]f a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires that information relating to a transaction or transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce be provided or made available to a consumer in writing, the use of an electronic record to provide or make available (whichever is required) such information satisfies the requirement that such information be in writing[.] 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1); see also Robert A. Wittie & Jane K. Winn, Electronic Records and Signatures Under the Federal E-Sign Legislation, 56 Bus. Law. 293, 299-301, 303-304 (Nov. 2000).

Section 7001(c)(1)(C)(ii) permits an electronic disclosure only when the consumer electronically consents in a manner reasonably demonstrating that the consumer can access the electronic information to be provided.

State of Tennessee v. Ideal Horizon Benefits, LLC · filed 2024-09-30(c)(1)(C)(ii)

The E-Sign Act provides, in pertinent part, that if a regulation requires a disclosure be made in writing, an electronic form will suffice if: “the consumer consents electronically, or confirms his or her consent electronically, in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access information in the electronic form that will be used to provide the information that is the subject of the consent. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1)(C)(ii). Here, the SAC plainly alleges that the consumers did not provide the required consent. The SAC alleges that the required disclosures are provided exclusively through Solar Titan representatives, and that many consumers are unable to access the disclosures from their own devices or those used by Solar Titan representatives. [Doc. 241, ¶¶ 534–37]. At this stage, the Court is required to take those factual allegations as true. And when taken as true, they constitute a plain violation of the E-Sign Act.

Section 7001 authorizes electronic signatures and addresses consumer consent to them, but does not generally require disclosure of documents and applies only to documents a person electronically signs.

Siaway v. Webster Bank N.A. · filed 2025-09-29

In any event, the Electronic Signature Act only applies to documents a person electronically signs and that allegation is missing from Mr. Siaway’s Complaint.

Section 7001 applies to transactions in or affecting interstate commerce, including a transaction between companies in different states.

Princeton Industrial, Products, Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp. · filed 2015-08-17(a)

But, as the ESIGN Act applies to “all transactions in or affecting interstate commerce,” 15 U.S.C. § 1701, it clearly applies to a transaction between an Illinois company and a New York company.

Section 7001(a)(1) bars denying legal effect, validity, or enforceability to a signature, contract, or record in a transaction affecting interstate or foreign commerce solely because it is electronic.

Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro. · filed 2021-02-01(a)(1)

The Federal ESIGN Act does not apply in this case. 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1) states, “Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other rule of law (other than this subchapter and subchapter II), with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce -- (1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form . . . .” (Emphasis added). The impeachment of a City prosecutor does not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, this opinion does not further discuss the ESIGN Act.

Section 7001 does not create a private right of action under the E-Sign Act.

Li v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. · filed 2021-09-07

Finally, Li provides no colorable basis for a claim under the E-Sign Act, a statute that says nothing about any private right of action, see 15 U.S.C. § 7001, and which “cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction,” Dabydeen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 18-CV-3396(KAM), 2018 WL 3212421, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2018); Yoshimura v. Takahashi, 446 F. Supp. 3d 644, 652 (D. Haw. 2020) (same).

The E-SIGN Act does not create an express or implied private right of action.

Hicks v. Capital One Bank · filed 2025-03-31

First, the E-SIGN Act and the various criminal statutes cited in the Complaint do not provide a private right of action. See 15 U.S.C. § 7001, et seq. (E-Signatures Act); ... Plaintiff’s claims based on these statutes are subject to summary dismissal, not summary judgment in his favor.

Section 7001 does not provide a private right of action.

Pickering v. Amazon.com Inc · filed 2025-04-21

To the extent that Pickering references the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001, in his briefing (Dkt. No. 20 at 2), this act was not mentioned in the complaint and does not provide a private right of action, as noted by Amazon. ... Thus, whether Pickering intends to amend the complaint to add a claim for violation of the E-SIGN Act, or believes that such a claim was included in the complaint, such a claim would fail as a matter of law.

Section 7001 does not create a private right of action or independently confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Yoshimura v. Takahashi · filed 2020-03-11(a)

Because the Court has already determined that the E-SIGN Act does not supply a basis for federal question jurisdiction, neither can the DJA, as jurisdiction must exist independent of the DJA.

Section 7001(a) does not create a private right of action based on the electronic form of a document.

Anofienem v. WeWork Companies · filed 2026-01-15(a)

Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant violated the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) by failing to provide a valid electronically signed agreement.” Compl. ¶ 24. But “[n]o provision of the [E-SIGN Act], nor any case interpreting it, recognizes such a private right of action based on the electronic form of a document.” Yoshimura v. Takahashi, 446 F. Supp. 3d 644, 652 (D. Haw. 2020) (citation omitted); Rigsby v. GoDaddy Inc., 2021 WL 2416829, at *6 (D. Ariz. June 14, 2021) (holding that because there is no private right of action under the E-SIGN Act, it “does not provide a basis for the declaratory judgment” to say that an agreement is unenforceable for failure to comply with the E-SIGN Act). The E-SIGN Act thus does not provide a basis for the alleged cause of action.

Section 7001(c)(1)(B) applies when a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires transaction-related information to be provided or made available in writing.

Lopez v. Cequel Communications, LLC · filed 2021-11-03(c)(1)(B)

Moreover, the portion of the E-sign Act Plaintiff cites only applies to the use of electronic records when “a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires that information relating to a transaction . . . be provided or made available in writing.” 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1)(B). Plaintiff offers no evidence to suggest that Defendant violated either of these two statutes, or any authority to suggest the statutes are relevant in the instant case.

Section 7001(c)(1)(B) applies when a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires transaction information to be provided or made available in writing.

Simon v. National Passenger Corporation · filed 2025-01-29(c)(1)(B)

The portion of the statute that Plaintiff cites to applies only to the use of electronic records when ... provided or made available in writing.

Section 7001(c)(1)(D) requires advance notice to consumers when access to electronic records related to electronic signatures may be imperiled, but it applies only to transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

PETREL v. SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-05-07(c)(1)(D)

Again, without supporting caselaw, Plaintiff directs the Court to 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1)(D) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“ESIGN Act”), which requires that consumers be provided with advance notice of situations where their access to electronic records related to electronic signatures may be imperiled. Plaintiff contends that she was given no advance notice that UKG’s audit trail underlying her electronic signature would become unavailable. ... The provision of the ESIGN Act relied upon by Plaintiff, however, applies only to “transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce[,]” and does not undermine the validity of her signature. See 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1). Again, Plaintiff’s invocation of this federal statute is inapplicable to the facts at bar.