Today’s ever-shifting business environment means that consumers, businesses, employers, and employees all expect to transact digitally. To remain efficient and competitive, companies must digitally transform their businesses from paper to fully electronic processes. Successful transformation and maintenance require careful planning and up-to-date knowledge to ensure smooth integration with existing business technology, positive customer experience, and ongoing regulatory compliance.
This newsletter includes legal insights and brief summaries of recently enacted federal and state laws, federal and state regulatory activities, fresh judicial precedent, and other important news to keep you up to date in the ever-evolving electronic environment.
Please see our Blockchain and Digital Assets News and Trends publication for updates on blockchain, digital assets, stablecoins, market structure, virtual currency, and other token-related information.
If you would like to discuss one of these items, or a project you are considering, please reach out to one of the editors – and, if there is a topic you would like us to cover in a future Insight, we would love to hear from you.
INSIGHT
A revamped CFPB rulemaking on personal financial data rights
By: Emily Honsa Hicks
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published an Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking on August 22, 2025, reopening the rulemaking process for Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which deals with how consumers can access and share their personal financial data. This move comes after a court put the previous version of the rule on hold (Forcht Bank, NA v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 5:24-cv-00304, (E.D. Ky.) Date Filed: Oct. 22, 2024) and new CFPB leadership signaled a shift in approach. The CFPB is now asking for public feedback on several key issues, with comments due by October 21, 2025, and the CFPB also plans to extend the current compliance deadlines, which were set to begin in mid-2026. Read more.
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
FEDERAL
White House
AI action plan released. In July 2025, the Trump Administration released an AI Action Plan that establishes a roadmap articulating policy recommendations related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) across sectors. The plan, built on three pillars of innovation, infrastructure, and international leadership, emphasizes the need for pro-innovation initiatives, including centralized oversight of federal AI activity through a new Chief AI Officer Council, enhanced federal procurement risk management, and the identification of key AI applications and infrastructure needs. It highlights the importance of transparency, vendor accountability, and robust risk controls to the administration, and outlines recommended policy direction that mitigates risks associated with federal use of AI, such as cybersecurity, unintended bias, misuse, and workforce impacts. The plan also calls for high-security data centers, improved supply chain visibility, and procurement reforms to ensure safety and neutrality in AI systems. Federal agencies and organizations working with, or contracting for, the US government can expect increased scrutiny and new compliance expectations, particularly regarding data governance, open-source technologies and data, and the protection of critical infrastructure. Read our alert here.
Treasury
Investment adviser rule postponed. The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an order on August 5, 2025, granting temporary exemptive relief to investment advisers from the requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers (IA AML Rule). The IA AML Rule, originally set to become effective on January 1, 2026, will now not apply to covered investment advisers until at least January 1, 2028, while FinCEN reviews the rule for potential amendments. Treasury indicates that this exemption is part of a broader review to ensure rules align with current deregulatory policies and are appropriately tailored to the investment adviser sector. FinCEN announced its intention to issue the order on July 21, 2025, and also indicated that it intends to propose a new effective date for the IA AML Rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Treasury requests comments on innovative methods to detect illicit activity involving digital assets under GENIUS Act. Treasury has issued a request for public comment on innovative methods, techniques, and strategies to detect and mitigate illicit financial activities involving digital assets, as mandated by the GENIUS Act and Executive Order 14178. The notice seeks input on technologies such as application programming interfaces (APIs), AI, digital identity verification, and blockchain monitoring, with the goal of enhancing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) compliance and supporting the responsible growth of digital assets. Treasury invites feedback on the effectiveness, costs, privacy risks, operational challenges, and cybersecurity considerations of these tools, and will use the input to inform future research, guidance, and potential regulatory updates. Comments are due by October 17, 2025, and may be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Federal Reserve
Exemptions from CIP rule. A number of federal financial agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), with the concurrence of FinCEN, have issued orders or otherwise exempted their supervised entities from the Customer Identification Program Rule (CIP Rule) requirement to obtain a Tax Identification Number (TIN) from their customers. The CIP Rule, which implements Section 326 of the PATRIOT Act, would otherwise require a bank or credit union to obtain a customer TIN from the customer prior to opening an account. Supervised institutions that are exempted may use an alternative method to collect TIN information from third-party sources, provided they continue to comply with other CIP requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. This exemption is optional, and applies to accounts at all entities supervised by the agencies (including all accounts at banks and their subsidiaries under the Federal Reserve’s jurisdiction), reflecting changes in banking practices and the availability of new identification methods. On August 5, 2025, the FDIC also issued an interpretation that will allow FDIC-supervised institutions to pre-fill information for customer review and submission where the information is obtained either from existing or previous accounts/relationships, including from other sources or third parties. The FDIC will consider this to satisfy the CIP requirements under certain circumstances.
FTC
FTC emphasizes data security and privacy in electronic transactions. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced, on August 21, 2025, that it has issued letters to leading technology companies highlighting their obligations to maintain the privacy and security of American consumers’ data in the context of electronic transactions. The FTC specifically cautioned that companies must not weaken encryption or other security measures that protect electronic communications and transactions, even when facing pressure from foreign laws such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act or the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and Investigatory Powers Act. The agency underscored that any actions taken to comply with foreign requirements – such as reducing security standards or enabling surveillance – must not violate US laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices in electronic commerce, as such actions could compromise the integrity and confidentiality of electronic transactions and expose both companies and consumers to increased risks.
NIST
NIST requests comments on AI Testing, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation Standards draft outline. In March 2025, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched its AI Standards Zero Drafts pilot project to accelerate the development of AI standards and broaden stakeholder involvement. Following the pilot’s initiation and community feedback, NIST selected two initial focus areas: AI testing, evaluation, verification, and validation (TEVV), and documentation of AI models and datasets. NIST has now published a detailed outline for the TEVV zero draft, which is intended to serve as a comprehensive framework to guide AI practitioners in designing TEVV approaches tailored to specific systems and use cases. The framework is designed to complement existing and future ISO/IEC standards on AI testing and to support their practical application. NIST invites feedback on the outline, with input received by September 12, 2025, to be considered for the initial public draft and later submissions for future revisions. Comments, including supporting materials, should be sent to ai-standards@nist.gov and will become part of the public record, with significant contributions potentially acknowledged in the final product.
Data destruction guidelines released for comment. The initial public draft of NIST Special Publication 800-88 Revision 2, Guidelines for Media Sanitization, has been released for public comment. This updated draft emphasizes the establishment of agency or enterprise-wide media sanitization programs (that is, programs designed to render data on storage media inaccessible or unrecoverable for a given level of effort) and replaces previous technique descriptions with recommendations to align with the latest standards. Key changes include enhanced security assurance through sanitization validation, the introduction of logical sanitization to address modern computing environments such as the cloud, and an updated references section reflecting current documents. The public comment period for this draft is open through August 29, 2025.
NIST proposes to update crypto key establishment. In December 2024, NIST’s Crypto Publication Review Board began a review of three key Special Publications related to cryptographic key establishment: SP 800-56Ar3 (pair-wise key-establishment using discrete logarithm cryptography), SP 800-56Br2 (pair-wise key-establishment using integer factorization cryptography), and SP 800-56Cr2 (key-derivation methods in key-establishment schemes). After considering public comments, NIST now proposes to update SP 800-56Ar3, reaffirm SP 800-56Br2, and revise SP 800-56Cr2. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on these proposed actions by September 15, 2025, with all responses to be published on the Crypto Publication Review Project site, including submitters’ names and affiliations.
STATE
Unsolicited calls/texts
States launch Operation Robocall Roundup. The Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, comprising attorneys general from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, reportedly initiated “Operation Robocall Roundup” in August 2025, targeting voice service providers accused of failing to implement required Federal Communications Commission safeguards against illegal robocalls. The task force issued warning letters to 37 providers alleged to have routed thousands of scam robocalls, including those impersonating legitimate businesses, and gave them 21 days to submit detailed compliance plans in accordance with federal and state laws. Additional notifications were sent to downstream companies accepting call traffic from these providers. The operation targets originating or transmitting illegal robocalls in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Caller ID Act, and state consumer protection statutes, with potential consequences including fines, operational restrictions, and license revocations. Voice service providers are urged to ensure compliance by filing required certifications and mitigation plans, responding to traceback requests, and implementing robust authentication.
Oregon enacts expanded telephone solicitation law. Oregon has enacted House Bill 3865, which significantly updates the state’s telephone solicitation laws. Effective January 1, 2026, the law narrows permissible calling hours to between 8 am and 8 pm (previously 9 pm), expands the definition of telephone solicitations to include text messages, and imposes new requirements on the use of automatic dialing and announcing devices, such as prompt disconnection after a call and providing consumers with an opt-out mechanism. The law also limits solicitations to no more than three within a 24-hour period unless there is an established business relationship, defined as a transaction within the past 18 months. Notably, debt collectors, debt buyers, and collection agencies are exempt from certain restrictions, including the opt-out requirement for automatic dialing devices.
Earned wage access
Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, and Maryland enact EWA laws. Four states have joined Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, and California in enacting statutes or regulations governing earned wage access (EWA) products.
- Connecticut’s law, enacted July 8, 2025, and effective October 1, 2025, amends the state’s small loan act to specifically regulate EWA advances, requiring providers to obtain a license. The law caps finance charges at $4 per advance or $30 per month and mandates that every transaction includes a no-cost option for the worker. Providers are prohibited from using credit reports or scores to determine eligibility and must verify earnings using payroll data or other approved methods. The law also requires anti-stacking measures to prevent multiple advances on the same earned income, limits repayment to coincide with the worker’s next paycheck, and prohibits credit card payments and sharing of fees or tips with employers.
- Indiana’s law, enacted May 6, 2025, and effective January 1, 2026, establishes a licensing regime for EWA providers and requires quarterly composite reporting. Delivery fees are capped at $5 or 5 percent of the proceeds, whichever is greater, and providers must offer a no-cost option, with fee-based delivery options prohibited as the default. The law forbids the use of credit reports for eligibility, restricts data sharing and advertising practices, and prohibits credit card payments. Providers are also barred from sharing fees or tips with employers and must comply with privacy and information security laws.
- Louisiana’s law, enacted July 1, 2025, and effective August 1, 2025, does not require licensing or registration for EWA providers but mandates annual reporting for those who charge fees. The law imposes conduct requirements such as mandatory consumer disclosures and a no-cost option for accessing earned wages. Providers are prohibited from using credit scores for eligibility, charging interest or late fees, and accepting credit card payments. Sharing fees or tips with employers is not allowed, and enforcement of the law falls under the attorney general’s authority via the state’s consumer protection statute.
- Maryland’s law, enacted in May 2025, and effective October 1, 2025, requires EWA providers to be licensed and submit annual reports to the Office of Financial Regulation. Delivery fees are capped at $5 for advances of $75 or less and $7.50 for advances over $75. Providers must offer a no-cost option and provide clear consumer disclosures. The law prohibits the use of credit reports for eligibility, charging interest or late fees, and sharing fees or tips with employers. Additionally, providers must reimburse consumers for overdraft fees caused by the provider and comply with privacy and information security laws.
Amendments to North Dakota’s Money Brokers Act. North Dakota has amended its Money Brokers Act, effective August 1, 2025, to expand the definition of a “loan” to include any “alternative financing product” designated by the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). This legislative change means that providers and potentially brokers of non-traditional financial arrangements – such as merchant cash advances and EWA – may be required to obtain a money broker license to offer these products to North Dakota residents. The act imposes requirements, including a 36-percent annual rate cap on finance charges and mandatory federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures. The DFI will determine which products are covered, and the act continues to exempt depository institutions, insurance companies, licensed residential mortgage lenders, trust companies, Farm Credit Administration-chartered institutions, licensed pawnbrokers, certain nonprofit organizations, and other entities already regulated and licensed to lend money in North Dakota.
Buy now, pay later
HUD issues request for information regarding BNPL. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued a request for information to assess how the use of buy now, pay later (BNPL) products may affect consumers’ ability to meet housing-related expenses, including rent and mortgage payments. HUD is soliciting comments from the public, with a deadline of August 25, 2025, to better understand the intersection between BNPL lending and housing affordability. The department noted the rapid growth of BNPL services and their potential to create additional short-term debt obligations that may not be fully visible to mortgage lenders during underwriting. HUD’s inquiry is focused on several key areas, including the effect of frequent BNPL usage on borrowers’ ability to pay for housing, the credit and spending profiles of BNPL users, reasons for choosing BNPL over other payment methods, and the implications of loan stacking. HUD also seeks information on whether BNPL usage leads to the sacrifice of housing-related expenses and how it may impact eligibility for FHA-insured mortgage programs. HUD noted that under current FHA policies, most BNPL loans are excluded from underwriting because they are closed-end debts to be paid off within ten months with cumulative payments less than or equal to five percent of the borrower’s gross monthly income.
CFPB closes investigation into firearms BNPL fintech. On August 19, 2025, the CFPB notified a fintech company that provided BNPL financing for firearms purchases of the closure of a multi-year investigation into numerous consumer complaints. The letter indicated that the matter would not proceed to settlement or litigation. The CFPB concluded by stating that the investigation was inconsistent with consumer protection law and referenced an Executive Order prohibiting politicized regulatory actions against lawful businesses.
Estates and trusts
Missouri enacts eWills law. On August 28, 2025, Missouri implemented the Missouri Electronic Wills and Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act, following the July 11, 2025, signing of House Bill 754 by Governor Mike Kehoe. This legislation makes Missouri the fifth state to offer comprehensive digital estate planning and the fifteenth state to legally recognize electronic wills. The new law enables individuals in Missouri to create, execute, and store wills and other estate planning documents entirely in electronic form, reflecting a growing national trend toward digital solutions in estate planning.
eRecords
27 states have now adopted the UELMA. The model Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA) was completed by the Uniform Law Commission in 2011 and endorsed by organizations such as the American Association of Law Libraries and the American Bar Association. States that adopt the UELMA establish a technology-neutral framework to ensure that official electronic legal materials are authenticated, preserved, and permanently accessible to the public. UELMA requires that electronic legal documents be verifiably unaltered, maintained in either electronic or print form, and made available for ongoing public use. Recent legislative activity includes the following additional state enactments in 2025:
- Oklahoma enacted HB 2258 on May 29, 2025
- Arkansas enacted HB 1739 on April 17, 2025
- Montana enacted HB 111 on April 4, 2025
Artificial intelligence
States adopt AI laws. A growing number of states have adopted their own AI-specific laws, including Pennsylvania and Texas.
- Pennsylvania AI scam protection law enacted. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed SB 649 into law on July 7, 2025, establishing new criminal penalties for the use of AI to create non-consensual forged digital likenesses – such as deepfakes or voice clones – intended to defraud or harm individuals, with a particular focus on protecting older adults from AI-driven scams and financial exploitation. The law makes it a third-degree felony to use AI-generated fake content for fraudulent or injurious purposes and builds on previous legislation targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate images. The Pennsylvania Departments of Aging, Banking and Securities, and Insurance is also expanding consumer education and support initiatives including the launch of a centralized consumer protection hotline and website to help Pennsylvanians recognize and avoid AI-related fraud.
- Texas adopts responsible AI governance act. Texas enacted HB 149, the “Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act,” on June 22, 2025, establishing comprehensive statewide regulation of AI. The Act introduces baseline duties for AI developers and deployers, prohibits AI use for social scoring or discrimination, and creates an AI regulatory sandbox, with exclusive enforcement authority granted to the attorney general. It also preempts local AI ordinances, aiming for a more innovation-friendly approach through a higher intent standard for algorithmic bias and several safe harbors. The law takes effect January 1, 2026, giving companies 18 months to prepare. Organizations are encouraged to align compliance efforts with other major AI laws and monitor potential federal developments. Read our alert for more information.
UCC
Additional states enact UCC Article 12 on controllable electronic records. The following states join 29 other states and the District of Columbia in adopting the 2022 Amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), including Article 12 governing property rights of intangible digital assets as Controllable Electronic Records (CERs):
- North Carolina adopted HB 40 on June 26
- Connecticut enacted HB 6970 on July 8
For more information on CERs under UCC Article 12, see our prior issues from May 2023, July 2023, January 2025, May 2025, and June 2025.
CASE LAW
FEDERAL
FTC’s Negative Option Rule vacated just before compliance deadline. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FTC’s amended Negative Option Rule, also known as the “click-to-cancel” rule, on July 8, 2025, due to procedural deficiencies in the rulemaking process. In the case Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-3388 (8th Cir. 2025), the court found that the FTC failed to conduct a required preliminary regulatory analysis, as mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 57b-3, after an administrative law judge determined that the rule’s compliance costs would exceed $100 million annually; the court found that this omission deprived stakeholders of the opportunity to comment on alternatives and engage with the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis. As a result, the entire rule was set aside just days before its scheduled July 14 compliance deadline, temporarily relieving subscription service providers from the rule’s requirements while leaving state laws and enforcement actions unaffected. Read our alert for more information.
Nevada court upholds electronic terms of service. In Broadnax v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00190-APG-BNW, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129978 (D. Nev. July 8, 2025), the court addressed the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in Lyft’s Terms of Service, which were established through the Lyft Driver App. The plaintiff, Broadnax, acknowledged the existence of a valid contract with Lyft but argued that he was not bound by the arbitration clause because he never physically signed or received the Terms of Service or related agreements. The record showed that Broadnax had previously attached a copy of the Terms of Service to a court filing, confirming his possession of the document. The court noted that both federal law (15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)) and Nevada law (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 719.240) recognize the validity of electronic signatures, and do not require a physical, ink signature for a contract to be enforceable.
Virginia bankruptcy court sanctions law firm for deficient electronic signature practices. In Cheney v. Watson (In re Recovery Law Grp., APC), 670 B.R. 193 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2025), the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia addressed the conduct of an attorney and collections agency in connection with the filing of five consumer bankruptcy cases. The court found that the attorney/agency operated a multi-jurisdictional practice, acquiring clients online and instructing them to print, hand-sign, and mail undated signature pages, which were then affixed to electronically filed bankruptcy petitions and schedules. The court determined that the documents filed with the court, bearing electronic signatures, did not match the original, physically signed documents provided by the clients, resulting in material discrepancies and misrepresentations regarding the authenticity and accuracy of the filings. The court held that attorney/agency violated multiple provisions, including the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Bankruptcy Rule 9011, and 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(4), by filing inaccurate documents, failing to communicate with clients, and misrepresenting that the electronically filed documents had been properly signed by the debtors. The court imposed sanctions, ordered the refund of attorney’s fees, and barred attorney/agency from further practice before the court for specified periods.
Tenth Circuit overturns BIA rejection of appeal for electronic signature omission. In Cortez v. Bondi, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19624 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) rejection of a notice of appeal on the grounds that the proof-of-service section was not signed, despite the document being electronically filed and the opposing party participating in the electronic system. The petitioners’ attorney had checked the box indicating that no service was needed due to electronic filing but left the signature line blank, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The BIA dismissed the appeal for lack of a signature and later denied a motion to reconsider, maintaining that a signature was required. The Tenth Circuit held that, under the applicable regulations and the instructions on the BIA’s form, a signature was not required in the proof-of-service section when the document was filed electronically, and no separate service was necessary. The court vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, clarifying that the BIA’s rejection was based on an erroneous interpretation of its own requirements.
Washington federal court upholds clickwrap electronic signature for insurance notices. In Hughes v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., 766 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (W.D. Wash. 2025), the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington addressed the enforceability of electronic signatures and consent to electronic delivery of insurance policy documents. The plaintiffs, after purchasing a homeowners insurance policy, registered for an online account and completed an electronic signature process that required checking a box agreeing to terms and conditions, which were accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink. The insurer subsequently sent renewal notices and policy documents electronically, as agreed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ electronic consent and signature were valid and enforceable under Washington law, specifically referencing Washington Revised Code § 48.185.005 and relevant federal case law on clickwrap agreements. The court found that the insurer’s electronic notices complied with statutory requirements for conspicuousness and clarity, and that the plaintiffs had validly acquiesced to receive policy documents electronically and granted summary judgment for the insurer.
US tax court confirms validity of electronic signatures on petitions. In Donlan v. Commissioner, 2025 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 442; 164 T.C. No. 3 (U.S. Tax Court, Feb. 19, 2025), the United States Tax Court addressed whether a petition electronically filed using the court’s online petition generator, which included only typewritten names in the signature block and no handwritten signatures, satisfied the court’s signature requirements. The petitioners, Robert Donlan, Jr. and Kegan Donlan, filed their petition in response to an Internal Revenue Service Notice of Deficiency, utilizing the court’s e-filing system. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the absence of handwritten signatures rendered the petition invalid. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion, holding that under Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 23(a)(3), a person’s name on a signature block of a document authorized to be filed electronically constitutes that person’s signature. The court further referenced its electronic filing instructions, which state that the combination of an eFiling username and password, along with the typewritten name in the signature block, is sufficient to meet the signature requirement.
California court declines to enforce website terms in guest checkout. In Cody v. Jill Acquisition LLC, No. 25-937 (S.D. Cal. June 30, 2025), the United States District Court for the Southern District of California addressed whether a retail website’s terms of use, including an arbitration clause, were enforceable against a consumer who completed a purchase using guest checkout. The plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act related to the site’s pricing policies. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the plaintiff had agreed to the site’s terms by clicking the “Place Order” button, where a hyperlinked notice of the terms was displayed directly below the button. The court held that the website’s visual design provided adequate notice of the terms, but the context of the transaction – specifically, the use of guest checkout – meant the plaintiff was less likely to expect a continuing contractual relationship. The court concluded that, in this context, the notice was not sufficiently conspicuous to bind the plaintiff to the arbitration provision.
STATE
California court clarifies electronic service requirements for appeal deadlines. In Wing Inflatables, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 112 Cal. App. 5th 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, addressed the requirements for electronic service of court orders and their impact on appeal deadlines. The court considered whether an email from the court clerk, which attached a file-endorsed copy of an order but lacked a signed certificate of service and did not constitute a single, self-sufficient document, was sufficient to trigger the 60-day period for filing an appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A). The court held that the email and its attachment did not meet the statutory requirements because the certificate of service was not signed and was not attached to, stamped on, or embedded in the served document itself. The court explained that, under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6 and 1013b, and consistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., a signed certificate of service by the clerk must be part of the document being electronically served to clearly establish the date of service and trigger the appeal period. The court emphasized the necessity of a single, self-contained document showing the date of service to avoid ambiguity regarding jurisdictional time limits for appeals. As a result, the appeal in this case was deemed timely because the 60-day period had not been properly triggered by the clerk’s electronic service.
Texas court declines to enforce electronically signed court order due to clerical error. In In re Tex. Wall & Landscape, LLC, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, addressed a situation where a summary judgment order dated April 8, 2024, was mistakenly marked with the court’s electronic PDF signature and recorded as granted. The court stated that the electronic signature was added to the PDF version of the summary judgment order in error and that the court did not render judgment or intend to grant the defendant’s summary judgment on that date. The judgment further clarified that any order reflecting the court’s electronic signature as granting summary judgment was the result of a clerical, electronic mistake unknown to the court and should not have been marked as signed or granted.
DLA PIPER NEWS
Chambers FinTech Legal ranks DLA Piper in four categories, including Band 2 for Blockchain and Digital Assets, and Band 3 for Payments and Lending, with Margo Tank individually recognized in Band 3 in Blockchain and Digital Assets and Band 2 in Payments and Lending.
RECENT EVENTS
Margo Tank and Liz Caires co-presented at the Electronic Signatures and Records Association (ESRA) Spring Member Meeting, held virtually on April 28, 2025. They presented the Legal Update and Regulatory Review, a summary of key legal developments affecting electronic signatures and records, which covered federal and state activity and cases related to electronic signatures and records, websites, electronic payments, and remote online notarization; control structures under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 8; and changes to UCC Article 9 due to the 2022 UCC amendments.
Liz Caires presented on a webinar panel titled, E-Signatures and Electronic Documentation in Real Estate Finance: ESIGN and UETA, Interplay With UCC, on February 21, 2025.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Margo Tank, Liz Caires, Emily Honsa Hicks, among other DLA Piper attorneys, co-authored the USA Law and Practice section of the Fintech 2025: Chambers Global Practice Guide, which covers nearly 40 jurisdictions and contains practical guidance on fintech markets and their regulation, including regulatory jurisdiction, sandboxes, anti-money laundering rules, and Financial Action Task Force standards; robo-advisers, online lenders, and payment processors; marketplaces, exchanges, and trading platforms; high-frequency and algorithmic trading; insurtech and regtech; blockchain and DeFi; and open banking.
DLA Piper recently published its International Debt Finance Intelligence Report 2025, in addition to its Regulatory Supplement to International Debt Finance Intelligence Report 2025, containing content on market evolution in 2024, deal economics, understanding delayed draw term loans, five key trends in mid-market sustainability-linked loans, regions under the spotlight, bank and private credit convergence, innovative financing solutions, transferability provisions, and what lies ahead.
DLA Piper published its global financial services report, Financial Futures: Disruption in US and Global Financial Services, after asking nearly 800 financial services decision-makers around the world about key disruptors impacting senior leaders in financial institutions and fintech. Check out our report and read about the challenges and opportunities that artificial intelligence (AI), digitization, and environment, social, and governance (ESG) pose for the financial services industry.
DLA Piper’s Tech Index 2024: Riding the next big wave: Is the tech industry buoyant or sinking? Our Tech Index 2024 explores this topic and more, drawing insights from 1,200 industry leaders and policymakers across the world. While our previous editions focused primarily on Europe, we have expanded the scope of this year’s Index to include all major regions, offering a more comprehensive view of the sector’s growth prospects, anticipated challenges, and emerging opportunities. Some key insights include the following:
- 63 percent of respondents view AI as the most important frontier for growth. Yet, AI adoption is not being driven by CEOs.
- 50 percent report that ESG is a higher priority now than in 2022. However, 61 percent do not have a comprehensive ESG framework – or any framework at all.
- 98 percent see opportunities in data monetization. Even so, only 38 percent employ data scientists to harness these opportunities.
Margo Tank co-authored The Law of Electronic Signatures, 2024 Edition (Thomson Reuters), an essential guide to electronic signatures and records laws, including the context in which the laws were adopted and the ways in which the authors believe the drafters intended them to be interpreted. The authors have more than 30 years combined experience, including involvement with the drafting and passage of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN Act), the preparation of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), the creation of the Standards and Procedures for electronic Records and Signatures (SPeRS™), and serving as counsel to the Electronic Signatures and Records Association. The insights they provide will be indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the impact of, and the liability associated with, using electronic signatures and electronic records.
These insights include:
- Details on the legal requirements for using electronic signatures and records, including delivery, presentation, signing, and record retention
- Comprehensive tables itemizing the state variations to the uniform UETA language
- Special considerations for using electronic signatures and records in connection with emerging and evolving technology
- Using electronic records and signatures in specialized transactions and documents, such as securities, chattel paper, and mortgages
- Analysis of the interplay between ESIGN, UETA, and many other key laws and regulations
- Identification and summaries of recent legal developments and court cases impacting electronic signatures and records
Emily Honsa Hicks co-authored the “Electronic Signatures and Records” chapter in the Consumer Financial Services Answer Book, 2024 Edition, published by Practicing Law Institute.
Read
2025 Private Credit Technology Summit: Perspectives from the industry
European Union publishes its General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
DOJ signals new approach to Big Tech algorithms and digital mergers
Electronic Money Tokens, European Banking Authority issues No Action Letter
DOJ’s revised policy on crediting fines: Emphasis on victims
In case you missed it
Read the latest issue of our bulletin Blockchain and Digital Assets News and Trends
Read the latest issue of our bulletin Bank Regulatory News and Trends
Contacts
Learn more about our Digital Transformation and Paperless Transactions practice – eSignatures, eRecords, ePayments and Fintech – by contacting:
Margo H.K. Tank
Liz Caires
Emily Honsa Hicks
The editors send their thanks and appreciation to Marc Aronson and Raymond Janicko for their contributions to this and prior issues.