U.S. Attorneys: What You Need to Know About European Digital Signature Laws
Given the current adoption pace and anticipated legislative updates, what are known as qualified digital signatures and seals could overtake 'wet signatures' as the main means of signing by next year throughout Europe.
March 06, 2019 at 07:00 AM
6 minute read
The U.S. is undoubtedly one of the world's greatest centers for business and law, but when it comes to adopting new enterprise technology, the country tends to wait and see what happens with friends across the pond in Europe. That is fine with us!
If you do any business in Europe, you may be somewhat aware that digital signatures are quickly becoming the norm here, and not just for legal matters per se. Banking and finance has caught onto them and in fact, as of this year in France all public tenders and contracts are required to be signed using qualified electronic signatures and seals. In the UK, last year the Land Registry announced a new dawn of “digital mortgages” by moving mortgage processing online.
Times are indeed changing and given the current adoption pace and anticipated legislative updates, I expect that what are known as qualified digital signatures and seals will overtake “wet signatures” as the main means of signing by next year throughout Europe. Because of this, U.S.-based attorneys collaborating with European colleagues, or working with EU-based customers, need to understand these laws. I will explain qualified digital signatures and seals in greater detail a bit later in this piece. But first, let's explore the increasing reliance on digital signatures in Europe.
Digital Signatures in Europe: The Background
Well over a decade ago, as more and more of business was going online, Europeans began questioning the origin and authenticity of digital documents. Questions such as: How can we ensure the identity of a signer? Can we prove the document is authentic? And, can there exist a solution to ensure identity and authenticity can be of documents can be cross EU member state borders?
It was also around this time Europe decided it needed a means to enable the exchange of information or services in a manner that guarantees the identity and authenticity of sender in a strong way. In order to achieve this, in 2014 the European Union's regulation on Electronic Identification and Authentication Services (eIDAS) came into effect. eIDAS sets an electronic identification standard to achieve safe and streamlined online transactions across Europe. And for this purpose, the regulation relies on qualified electronic trust services.
Thanks to eIDAS, the EU guarantees the acceptance of any qualified digital certificate throughout its territory, regardless of country of origin, with the clear goal of eliminating digital borders within the EU. This is a regulation that extends to all sectors with the clear goal of eliminating borders for electronic transactions in the EU and the greater European Economic Area (EEA).
The eIDAS regulation defines three levels of electronic signatures: basic electronic signatures, advanced electronic signatures and qualified electronic signatures. The requirements of each level build on the requirements of the level below it, such that a qualified electronic signature meets the highest level of requirements and a basic electronic signature the least.
What are Qualified Signatures and Qualified Trust Service Providers?
According to eIDAS, companies who require a high level of assurance on their digital transactions and exchanged information should be using advanced or qualified electronic signatures as these are the only signature type that have the same legal value as a handwritten signature.
Qualified signatures can only be issued by a Qualified Trust Service Provider (QTSP). A QTSP plays an important role in the process of qualified electronic signing—the highest assurance level of signature as specified by eIDAS.
Trust service providers must be given qualified status and permission from an EU member state governmental supervisory body to provide qualified Certificates (Natural Persons) and Seals (Legal Persons), which can be used to create qualified electronic signatures in adherence to strict guidelines.
In addition, eIDAS requires that each EU member state maintains a Trust List of the providers and services that have received qualified status in their country. A trust service provider is not entitled to provide qualified trust services if they are not on the EU member state Trust List.
Case in Point: Reducing Operational Burden
As stated upfront, U.S.-based attorneys working with European colleagues and customers need to better understand eIDAS and digital signatures. The following example provides some helpful insight.
Imagine you are a multinational technology provider that employs tens of thousands worldwide. Most of the employees are in North America, but increasingly operations have been ramping up in Europe. Your legal team wants to increase responsiveness to their stakeholders, as well as reduce the operational burden associated with transmitting legal documents over open networks but worry about security and compliance.
This challenge can be easily solved by adding digital signatures onto certain documents such as NDAs, response to tenders (RFPs) and various contracts (often via PDF files). This is now quite simple and common with most major document workflow cloud providers. However, selecting the right type of digital credential that meets government regulations around legal acceptability, as well as determines where the burden of proof lays, depends on the type of certificate issued.
In the case of our theoretical legal department, not all documents necessarily require the highest level of assurance. For example, an M&A agreement might warrant a high assurance issued certificate, whereas an NDA might be perfectly suited for a lesser assurance level.
In terms of eiDAS, the highest level of assurance associated with a digital signature is met by the use of a Qualified Certificate, whereas also legally valid (assuming note QC haven't been mandated) but without the unequivocal burden of proof on the signer, an advanced certificate might be perfectly suited. Giving the legal department the ability to secure their documents with an advanced or qualified signature provides a risk-based method to size the assurance level to the type of document being signed and transmitted. In either case, both types of signatures provide the recipient of the document the identity of the signer and that the document has not been tampered with.
From a legal perspective, the difference between an advanced and qualified signature lies in the fact that a qualified electronic signature reverses the burden of proof in the case of a dispute. With it, the signer has to prove they did not create the signature, instead of the claimant needing to proof it was the presumed signatory that really provided the electronic signature, as it is with basic or advanced signatures.
Digital signatures will be increasingly implemented throughout all of Europe, and eventually, will likely be extended to the U.S and other countries. This will be good news for attorneys who, by that point, should be well-versed in the rules around digital signatures.
Arvid Vermote is GlobalSign's worldwide Chief Information Security Officer. Based in Brussels, he is responsible for the security and compliance across the organization, which includes ensuring products and operations are provided in accordance with market regulations such as eIDAS.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1SEC Files Lawsuit Against Elon Musk Over Untimely Twitter Ownership Disclosure
- 2Survey Finds Majority of Legal Professionals Still Intimidated by AI Despite Need to Streamline Mounting Caseloads
- 3FTC Launches Inquiry of Single-Family Rental Home 'Mega Investors,' Issues PBM Report
- 4Womble Bond Dickinson's Wilmington Office Sees New Leadership as Merger Is Completed
- 5Defending Against a $290M Claim and Scoring a $116M Win in Del. Drug Patent Fight
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250