CT Signature legal compliance

ESIGN Act and UETA compliant by default.

Electronic signatures that meet the federal ESIGN Act and state UETA requirements: consent disclosure, intent-to-sign capture, identity verification, document association, signature attribution, and tamper-evident audit certificate. The legal foundation that makes electronic signatures defensible under audit and litigation.

Get early access What ESIGN/UETA require

Federal + state: ESIGN + all 50 states' UETA
Built in: Compliance happens automatically
Defensible: Audit certificate is evidence

What ESIGN/UETA require

Five elements that make e-signature binding

ESIGN and UETA both require these five elements for an electronic signature to have the same legal standing as ink. CT Signature handles each automatically.

Consent — signer agrees to e-signature use
Intent — signer intends to sign this specific document
Identity — signer is who they claim to be
Association — signature attached to the specific document
Attribution — signature attributable to the signer

ESIGN Act

Federal law

UETA

All 50 states

Audit certificate

Defensible evidence

Tamper-evident

Cryptographic integrity

Why this matters

An electronic signature isn't legally binding because the signer typed their name — it's binding because five specific requirements are met.

The federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN, 2000) and state Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) laws give electronic signatures the same legal standing as ink signatures — provided five specific requirements are met. Consent: the signer must agree to use electronic signatures for the document. Intent: the signer must demonstrate intent to sign this specific document, not just click a button. Identity: the signer's identity must be reasonably verified. Association: the electronic signature must be attached to the specific document being signed. Attribution: the signature must be attributable to the signer through a method that establishes their action.

Most e-signature platforms claim ESIGN/UETA compliance on their sales sheet but handle the requirements with varying rigor. The proof is in the audit certificate — if the certificate doesn't document consent, intent, identity, association, and attribution clearly, then a challenge to the signature has gaps to exploit. CT Signature's audit certificate documents each requirement explicitly, with cryptographic integrity that means the document signed and the document being challenged are demonstrably the same document.

When an electronic signature is challenged in court or in regulatory review, the audit certificate is the evidence that determines the outcome. CT Signature's audit certificates have been built around what challenge-defenders actually need: explicit consent disclosure, intent-to-sign tracking with timestamp, identity capture with IP and device fingerprint, document hash that proves document integrity, and full attribution chain. Defensible by design, not by sales pitch.

What ESIGN/UETA compliance actually delivers

Consent disclosure — signer explicitly agrees to electronic signing
Intent capture — signing action requires deliberate intent
Identity verification — IP, device fingerprint, email/phone validation
Document association — cryptographic hash binds signature to document
Attribution chain — signature traceable to the signer's verified identity

Compliance capabilities

How CT Signature handles each ESIGN/UETA requirement.

Consent disclosure

Before signing, every signer is presented with explicit consent disclosure: they're entering into an electronic transaction, the signature has the same legal effect as ink, they have the right to receive paper copies, they can withdraw consent. The consent action is logged in the audit certificate with timestamp.

Intent-to-sign capture

Signing isn't a single button click; the signer must take deliberate action (drawing or typing their signature in the field) that demonstrates intent. The audit certificate documents the signing action with timestamp, distinguishing it from accidental or coerced clicks.

Identity verification

Multi-factor identity verification: email or SMS link with secure token (verifies the signer has access to the email/phone associated with the request), IP address capture, device fingerprint, optional knowledge-based authentication for higher-stakes documents. The verification approach is appropriate to the document risk level.

Document association

Cryptographic hashing binds the signature to the specific document version being signed. The audit certificate includes the hash; the signed PDF includes the hash. If the document is later altered, the hashes won't match — alteration is detectable.

Attribution chain

Every signing event is attributable to the verified signer through the identity verification chain. The audit certificate documents the attribution: this signature was made by the holder of email X, from IP Y, on device Z, at timestamp T, intending to sign this specific document with hash H.

Tamper-evident audit certificate

Every signed envelope produces an audit certificate that documents every action: viewed, consent acknowledged, signed, declined, with timestamps, IP, device fingerprint, and document hash. The certificate is cryptographically protected from modification — tampering is detectable. The certificate is independently verifiable, not just trusted from the platform.

What it looks like in practice

A few ways teams use this.

Signature challenged in litigation

A contract signed via CT Signature is challenged in litigation — opposing party claims the signature wasn't really theirs. The audit certificate documents the consent disclosure they acknowledged, the intent action they took, the IP address and device fingerprint at signing, the cryptographic hash proving the document hasn't been altered. The certificate is admitted as evidence; the challenge fails because the audit chain is complete.

Regulatory review of electronic consent

Regulator reviews a sample of electronically-signed consent documents during a routine audit. The audit certificates document each ESIGN/UETA element clearly: consent, intent, identity, association, attribution. The regulator confirms compliance without follow-up findings. The platform's legal foundation passes without remediation.

Healthcare consent question post-treatment

Post-treatment, a patient questions whether they consented to a specific procedure. The audit certificate for the consent document shows: when the form was opened, how long the patient reviewed it before signing, the explicit consent disclosure they acknowledged, the signing action with timestamp. The clinical record has clear evidence of informed consent.

Frequently asked

Common ESIGN/UETA compliance questions.

Are there documents where ESIGN/UETA don't apply?

Yes. ESIGN and UETA carve out specific document categories where electronic signatures are not permitted or have additional requirements: wills, codicils, and testamentary trusts; some family law documents (adoption, divorce); court documents requiring traditional filing; some real estate transactions (notarized closing documents); certain UCC documents. Most commercial documents (contracts, agreements, consent forms, NDAs, employment offers) are covered. Consult state-specific guidance for edge cases.

What's the difference between ESIGN and UETA?

ESIGN is the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (2000), which provides federal recognition of electronic signatures. UETA is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, a model state law adopted by 49 states (NY has its own equivalent, ESRA). Both establish that electronic signatures have the same legal effect as ink signatures, with similar requirements (consent, intent, identity, association, attribution). For most transactions, both laws apply concurrently.

Does the audit certificate satisfy 'admissible evidence' standards?

The audit certificate is designed to be admissible evidence under federal and state rules of evidence for electronic records. It documents the elements courts and arbitrators look for when authenticating an electronic signature. The cryptographic hash is independently verifiable; the audit log is timestamped with attribution. Specific admissibility in any case depends on the specific court's evidentiary rulings; the certificate provides the foundation.

How does identity verification work for higher-risk documents?

Standard identity verification (email/SMS link, IP, device fingerprint) is sufficient for most documents under ESIGN/UETA. For higher-risk documents (large dollar transactions, real estate, etc.), optional knowledge-based authentication (KBA) adds verification: the signer answers questions derived from public records to confirm identity. KBA is configurable per template or per envelope.

What if a signer claims they didn't consent to electronic signing?

The consent disclosure shown to every signer before signing is captured in the audit certificate with timestamp and acknowledgement action. If a signer later claims they didn't consent, the certificate shows the consent disclosure was presented and acknowledged before signing. The challenge becomes hard to sustain when the consent action is documented.

Are ESIGN/UETA recognized internationally?

ESIGN and UETA are US laws. Other jurisdictions have their own electronic signature laws — eIDAS in the EU, similar laws in Canada, UK, and most developed markets. CT Signature's compliance posture is built around US ESIGN/UETA; international recognition depends on the receiving jurisdiction's laws and any treaty arrangements. For international use cases, consult counsel on the specific receiving jurisdiction.

ESIGN/UETA compliance you can defend.

Get on the early-access list and we'll walk through CT Signature's compliance posture against your specific document categories and risk profile.

Request early access Back to CT Signature