AB755: Bill Text

Currently, under Title I, a signature, contract, or other document relating to a covered transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in an electronic form, as long as the electronic contract or record, if it is otherwise required to be in writing, is capable of being retained and accurately reproduced by the relevant parties. Similarly, a contract relating to a covered transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic signature or electronic document was used in its formation.

Title I also permits electronic notarization, acknowledgement, or verification of a signature or document relating to a covered transaction, as long as the electronic signature of the person performing the notarization, acknowledgement, or verification is accompanied by all other information required by law. In addition, Title I provides that no person is required under Title I to agree to use or accept electronic records or signatures.

However, under Title I, any law that requires retention of a contract or document relating to a covered transaction may be satisfied by retaining an electronic document, as long as the retained information satisfies certain requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility. Title I contains similar provisions with regard to laws requiring retention of a check. An electronic contract or document retained in compliance with these provisions generally has the same legal status as an original document. As discussed above with regard to public records custodians, this provision of Title I also likely permits any private custodian of records relating to covered transactions to destroy original records if a proper electronic copy is retained.

Consumer protections

Under Title I, with regard to consumer transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, existing laws requiring written disclosure currently may be satisfied electronically only if the consumer consents after being informed of certain rights and of the technical requirements necessary to access and retain the electronic document. In addition, the consumer must consent or confirm his or her consent electronically in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access the information that is required to be provided to the consumer. The legal effect of a contract, though, may not be denied solely because of a failure to obtain the consumer's electronic consent consistent with this requirement. Title I also specifies that the use of electronic documents permitted under these consumer provisions does not include the use of an oral communication, such as a voice mail recording, unless that use is permitted under other applicable law.

Any federal regulatory agency, with respect to a matter within the agency's jurisdiction, may exempt a specified category or type of document from the general consumer consent requirement, if the exemption is necessary to eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce and will not increase the material risk of harm to consumers.

Exemptions

All of the following are exempt from coverage under the primary electronic commerce provisions of E-sign and, as a result, currently may not be provided in electronic format unless otherwise authorized by law:

1. A document to the extent that it is governed by a law covering the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts.

2. A document to the extent that it is governed by a law covering adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law.

3. A document to the extent that it is governed by certain sections of the Uniform Commercial code.

4. Court orders or notices and official court documents, including briefs, pleadings, and other writings.

5. Notices of cancellation or termination of utility services, including water, heat, and power.

6. Notices of default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, or eviction or the right to cure under a credit agreement secured by, or a rental agreement for, a primary residence of an individual.

7. Notices of the cancellation or termination of health insurance or life insurance, other than annuities.

8. Product recall notices.

9. Documents required to accompany the transportation of hazardous materials.

A federal regulatory agency may remove any of these exemptions, as the particular exemption applies to a matter within the agency's jurisdiction, if the agency finds that the exemption is no longer necessary for the protection of consumers and that the elimination of the exemption will not increase the material risk of harm to consumers.

Limits on the scope of Title I

In addition to these specific exemptions, Title I has a limited effect upon certain specified laws. For example, Title I states that it does not affect any requirement imposed by state law relating to a person's rights or obligations other than the requirement that contracts or other documents be in nonelectronic form. However, this provision may conflict with other provisions of Title I which appear to specifically affect obligations other than writing or signature requirements. Title I also has a limited effect on any state law enacted before E-sign that expressly requires verification or acknowledgement of receipt of a document. Under Title I, this type of document may be provided electronically only if the method used also provides verification or acknowledgement of receipt. In addition, Title I does not affect any law that requires a warning, notice, disclosure, or other document to be posted, displayed, or publicly affixed within a specified proximity.

State authority under Title I

Title I provides that a state regulatory agency that is responsible for rule making under any statute may interpret the primary electronic commerce provisions of Title I with respect to that statute, if the agency is authorized by law to do so. Rules, orders, or guidance produced by an agency under this authority must meet specific requirements relating to consistency with existing provisions of Title I; to regulatory burden; to justification for the rule, order, or guidance; and to neutrality with regard to the type of technology needed to satisfy the rule, order, or guidance. A state agency may also mandate specific performance standards with regard to document retention, in order to assure accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of retained electronic documents. However, under state law, the rule-making authority of a state agency is limited to interpretation and application of state law and no state agency may promulgate a rule that conflicts with state law.

Relationship between E-sign and UETA

With certain exceptions, E-sign preempts state laws that are inconsistent with its provisions. One of the exceptions permits a state to supersede the effect of the primary electronic commerce provisions of Title I by enacting a law that constitutes an enactment of UETA. However, a state may not use the optional provision in UETA that permits a state to insert exemptions relating to specific areas of state law from the application of UETA as a loophole to avoid the requirements of E-sign. If a state enacts UETA without significant change and containing no new exemptions under this provision of UETA, the state enactment of UETA will likely not be preempted by E-sign.

Because this bill makes no significant changes to the substance of UETA and the text is consistent with the intent of the version of UETA recommended for enactment in all of the states, the bill likely qualifies for this exception from preemption and, if enacted, would likely supplant the primary electronic commerce provisions of E-sign in this state. However, certain provisions of UETA and, as a result, this bill, are susceptible to varying interpretations. Many of these provisions are similar to current law under E-sign. This bill generally does not clarify these provisions. Rather, in order to avoid preemption, the text of this bill generally remains consistent with the recommended version of UETA.

UETA

The following analysis of the version of UETA contained in this bill generally reflects an interpretation that is consistent with the prefatory note and official comments accompanying UETA, which generally discuss the intent of each recommended provision of UETA. For the provisions that are subject to varying interpretations, this analysis discusses each primary interpretation and indicates which interpretation, if any, is supported by the prefatory note or comments. Although the prefatory note and comments have no legal effect, in the past courts have often relied on the prefatory notes and comments to other uniform laws when interpreting ambiguous provisions of those laws. In some instances, the interpretation supported by the prefatory note or comments is difficult to derive from the text of the bill.

Public records

This bill includes a provision potentially affecting the maintenance of public records that is similar to the provision currently in effect under E-sign. With certain exceptions, the bill permits a person to satisfy any law that requires retention of a document by retaining an electronic document, as long as the retained information satisfies certain requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility. Like current law under E-sign, this provision may be interpreted to permit a custodian of a public record relating to a transaction to destroy the original record and retain an electronic copy, notwithstanding other current statutes regarding the conversion of public records into electronic format and retention requirements.

However, this interpretation is less likely to occur under this bill than it is in current law under E-sign. Unlike E-sign, this bill specifically states that it applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. (See discussion under "Electronic Documents and Signatures in Commerce" (subheading "Applicability and definitions") below.) Although the definition of "transaction" may be interpreted broadly to include a typical governmental action like the filing of a document, the prefatory note and comments to UETA imply that a narrower interpretation is intended which covers only the actions of the government as a market participant. Thus, if interpreted consistently with the prefatory note and comments, the electronic document retention provisions will likely apply to the parties to a transaction, rather than to a governmental unit that stores public records relating to the filings and transactions of others.

This bill also provides that a person may comply with these electronic document retention provisions using the services of another person. If the term "transaction" is interpreted broadly, this provision may permit a public records custodian to transfer public records to other governmental or private parties for retention. However, if the term "transaction" is interpreted consistently with the prefatory note and comments to UETA, this provision generally would not apply to a public records custodian's retention of most public records.

Acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units

The same ambiguities regarding the acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units exist under this bill as exist currently under E-sign, although under this bill it is more likely that a governmental unit is not required to accept electronic documents. This bill attempts, in a manner consistent with UETA, to restore the law as it existed in this state before E-sign regarding the acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units. Thus, under this bill, any document that is required by law to be submitted in writing to a governmental unit and that requires a written signature may be submitted in an electronic format if the governmental unit consents. Although this bill, like current law under E-sign, also states that a document relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form, it is more likely under this bill that this provision has no effect on the authority of a governmental unit to refuse to accept an electronic document. Unlike current law under E-sign, this bill does not contain any statement that a governmental unit is required to accept an electronic document.

This bill also requires any governmental unit that adopts standards regarding the governmental unit's receipt of electronic records or electronic signatures to promote consistency and interoperability with similar standards adopted by other governmental units, the federal government, and other persons interacting with governmental units of this state.

Electronic documents and signatures in commerce

Rule of construction

This bill specifies that it must be construed and applied to facilitate electronic transactions consistent with other applicable law, to be consistent with reasonable practices concerning electronic transactions and with the continued expansion of those practices, and to bring about uniformity in the law of electronic transactions.

Applicability and definitions

Generally, the bill applies to the use of electronic records and electronic signatures relating to transactions. Like current law under E-sign, this bill broadly defines the term "electronic record" to include, among other things, any information that is stored by means of electrical or digital technology and that is retrievable in a perceivable form. This definition would likely cover such things as information stored on a computer disk or a voice mail recording. Because of this broad definition, in this analysis of the version of UETA contained in this bill, the term "document" is generally used in place of the term "record." Under the bill, an "electronic signature" includes, among other things, a sound, symbol, or process that relates to electrical technology, that is attached to or logically associated with a document, and that is executed or adopted by a person with intent to sign the document.

The bill defines "transaction" to mean an action or set of actions between two or more persons relating to the conduct of business, commercial, or governmental affairs. Although this definition may be interpreted broadly to include a typical interaction with the government like the filing of a document, the prefatory note and comments to UETA imply that a narrower interpretation is intended which covers the actions of the government as a market participant. In addition, although the definition does not expressly cover consumer-to-consumer or consumer-to-business transactions, it is possible to interpret this definition, consistent with the official comments, to cover these transactions.

This bill, like current law under E-sign, does not apply to a transaction governed by a law relating to the execution of wills or the creation of testamentary trusts or to a transaction governed by any chapter of this state's version of the Uniform Commercial Code other than the chapter dealing with sales of goods. However, because this bill does not contain all of the exemptions currently in effect under E-sign, this bill may permit a broader use of electronic documents relating to transactions than is currently permitted under E-sign. Unlike current law, this bill may permit the use of electronic documents for matters relating to family law; electronic court documents; electronic notices of the cancellation of utility services; electronic notices of default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, or eviction or the right to cure under a credit agreement secured by, or a rental agreement for, an individual's primary residence; electronic notices of the cancellation or termination of health insurance or life insurance; and electronic notices of product recalls.

Agreements to use electronic documents and electronic signatures

This bill does not require the use of electronic documents or electronic signatures. Rather, the bill applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Under the bill, this agreement is determined from the context, the surrounding circumstances, and the parties' conduct. A party that agrees to conduct one transaction by electronic means may refuse to conduct other transactions by electronic means. Although the bill also states that a document relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form, it is likely that, consistent with the comments, these provisions permit a person to deny the legal effect of an electronic document relating to a transaction if a party to the transaction never agreed to conduct the transaction electronically. With certain exceptions, the parties to any transaction may agree to vary the effect of this bill as it relates to that transaction.

Consumer protections

Unlike current law under E-sign, this bill does not contain any protections that specifically apply only to consumers. The consumer protections currently in effect under E-sign would likely have no effect in this state upon the enactment of this bill.

Legal effect of electronic documents and electronic signatures

As noted earlier, this bill specifies that a document or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. The bill also specifies that a contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic document was used in its formation. These provisions are similar to provisions in current law under E-sign. Unlike E-sign, this bill further states that an electronic document satisfies any law requiring a record to be in writing and that an electronic signature satisfies any law requiring a signature.

Effect of laws relating to the provision of information

Under this bill, if the parties to a transaction have agreed to conduct the transaction electronically and if a law requires a person to provide, send, or deliver information in writing to another person, a party may, with certain exceptions, satisfy the requirement with respect to that transaction by providing, sending, or delivering the information in an electronic document that is capable of retention by the recipient at the time of receipt. Although the bill also states that a document relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form, it is likely that, consistent with the comments, the bill permits a person to deny the legal effect of an electronic document relating to a transaction if the electronic document is provided, sent, or delivered in violation of this provision. The bill further provides that an electronic document is not enforceable against the recipient of the document if the sender inhibits the ability of the recipient to store or print the document.

The bill also specifies that, with certain exceptions, a document must satisfy any law requiring the document to be posted or displayed in a certain manner; to be sent, communicated, or transmitted by a specified method; or to contain information that is formatted in a certain manner. There are three possible interpretations of this provision. First, the provision may prohibit the use of an electronic document if a law requires the document to be posted, displayed, sent, communicated, transmitted, or formatted on paper. Second, the provision may instead require a paper document to be used in addition to an electronic document in these circumstances. Third, consistent with the comments, the provision may require the parties to a transaction to comply with any legal requirement relating to the provision of information other than a requirement that the information be provided on paper.

Attribution of electronic documents

Under this bill, an electronic document or electronic signature is attributable to a person whose act created the document or signature. The act of a person may be shown in any manner, including through the use of a security procedure that determines the person to whom an electronic document or electronic signature is attributable.

Effect of change or error

This bill contains three provisions that determine the effect of a change or error in an electronic document that occurs in a transmission between the parties to a transaction. First, if the parties have agreed to use a security procedure to detect changes or errors and if one of the parties fails to use a security procedure and an error or change occurs that the nonconforming party would have detected had the party used the security procedure, the other party may avoid the effect of the changed or erroneous electronic document. Second, in an automated transaction involving an individual, the individual may avoid the effect of an electronic document that results from an error made by the individual in dealing with the automated agent of another person, if the automated agent did not provide an opportunity for prevention or correction of the error. However, an individual may avoid the effect of the electronic document only if the individual, at the time he or she learns of the error, has received no benefit from the thing of value received from the other party under the transaction and only if the individual satisfies certain requirements relating to notification of the other party and return or destruction of the thing of value received. Third, if neither of these provisions applies to the transaction, the change or error has the effect provided by other law, including the law of mistake, and by any applicable contract between the parties.

Electronic notarization and acknowledgement

Like current law under E-sign, this bill permits electronic notarization, acknowledgement, or verification of a signature or document relating to a transaction, as long as the electronic signature of the person performing the notarization, acknowledgement, or verification is accompanied by all other information required by law.

Retention of electronic documents

Under this bill, any law that requires retention of a document may, with certain exceptions, be satisfied by retaining an electronic document, as long as the retained information satisfies certain requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility. The bill contains similar provisions with regard to laws requiring retention of a check, although the term "check" is not defined under the bill and, as a result, may not include a share draft or money order. These provisions are similar to current law under E-sign. However, unlike E-sign, this bill specifies that an electronic document that is required to be retained must accurately reflect the information set forth in the document after it was first generated in its final form as an electronic document or otherwise. The comments indicate that this provision is intended to ensure that the content of a document is retained when documents are converted or reformatted to allow for ongoing electronic retention. However, this provision may be interpreted to permit a retention requirement to be satisfied by retaining only the final version of a document that has earlier versions.

The bill provides that an electronic document retained in compliance with these provisions need not contain any information the sole purpose of which is to enable the document to be sent, communicated, or received. Under current law, this ancillary information is normally required to be retained along with the document to which it is attached. In addition, as under E-sign, an electronic contract or document retained in compliance with these provisions generally has the same legal status as an original document. Like E-sign, this bill also provides that a person may comply with these electronic document retention provisions using the services of another person.

The bill provides that the state may enact laws, after enactment of this bill, that prohibit a person from using an electronic document to satisfy any requirement that the person retain a document for evidentiary, audit, or like purposes. It is unclear, though, what types of retention requirements are enacted for "evidentiary, audit, or like purposes." It is also unclear how this provision relates to other provisions of the bill which provide that an electronic document satisfies any retention requirement as long as specified requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility are also satisfied.

In addition, the bill specifies that it does not preclude a governmental unit of this state from specifying additional requirements for the retention of any document subject to its jurisdiction. It is unclear how this provision relates to other provisions of the bill which provide that an electronic document satisfies any retention requirement as long as specified requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility are also satisfied. It is also unclear whether this provision grants rule-making authority or merely references any authority that may exist currently. Also, although it is unclear from the text whether this provision applies to nongovernmental documents or only to documents in the possession of a governmental unit, the official comments imply that the provision is intended to apply to nongovernmental documents that are subject to a governmental unit's jurisdiction.

Evidence

Under this bill, a document or signature may not be excluded as evidence solely because it is in electronic form. This provision confirms the treatment of electronic documents and signatures under current law.

Automated transactions

This bill validates contracts formed in automated transactions by the interaction of automated agents of the parties or by the interaction of one party's automated agent and an individual. Under current law, it is possible to argue that an automated transaction may not result in an enforceable contract because, at the time of the transaction, either or both of the parties lack an expression of human intent to form the contract.

Time and location of electronic sending and receipt

Under this bill, an electronic document is sent when the electronic document a) is addressed or otherwise properly directed to an information processing system that the intended recipient has designated or uses for the purpose of receiving electronic documents or information of the type sent and from which the recipient is able to retrieve the electronic document; b) is in a form capable of being processed by that information processing system; and c) enters an information processing system outside of the control of the sender or enters a region of the information processing system used or designated by the recipient that is under the recipient's control. An electronic document is received when the electronic document enters and is in a form capable of being processed by an information processing system that the recipient has designated or uses for the purpose of receiving electronic documents or information of the type sent and from which the recipient is able to retrieve the electronic document. The bill permits the parties to a transaction to agree to alter the effect of these provisions with respect to the transaction. Under the bill, an electronic document may be received even if no individual is aware of its receipt. Furthermore, under the bill, an electronic acknowledgment of receipt from the information processing system used or designated by the recipient establishes that the electronic document was received but does not establish that the information sent is the same as the information received.

These provisions may be interpreted to alter laws under which the date of receipt of a public record submitted for filing is the date on which a paper copy is received or postmarked, so that the date of electronic filing constitutes the date of receipt instead. However, as noted earlier, this bill specifically states that it applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Although the definition of "transaction" may be interpreted broadly to include a typical governmental action like the filing of a document, the prefatory note and comments to UETA imply that a narrower interpretation is intended which covers only the actions of the government as a market participant. If the narrower interpretation applies, then these provisions will likely have no effect upon the filing of most public records.

Under this bill, an electronic document is deemed to be sent from the sender's place of business that has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction and to be received at the recipient's place of business that has the closest relationship to the underlying transaction. If the sender or recipient does not have a place of business, the electronic document is deemed to be sent or received from the sender's or recipient's residence. The bill also permits a sender to expressly provide in an electronic document that the document is deemed to be sent from a different location. The bill also permits the parties to a transaction to agree to alter the effect of these provisions on the transaction. To the extent that an electronic document may constitute a sale, with the seller receiving payment electronically, these provisions may be interpreted to permit a seller to argue that a sale occurred in a jurisdiction where the seller is not subject to a tax that would otherwise be imposed under Wisconsin law. However, the official comments imply that this interpretation is not intended.

In addition, under the bill, if a person is aware that an electronic document purportedly sent or purportedly received in compliance with these provisions was not actually sent or received, the legal effect of the sending or receipt is determined by other applicable law. Although the official comments are silent on the meaning of this provision, it is likely intended to give a court direction as to what law to apply to determine the legal effect when there is a failure to send or receive an electronic document in the manner provided under the bill.

Transferable records

This bill expands current law with regard to transactions involving the use of transferable records (electronic versions of certain documents under the Uniform Commercial Code). Although current law under E-sign only permits the use of transferrable records in transactions secured by real property, this bill permits the use of transferable records in any transaction in which a promissory note or document of title under the Uniform Commercial Code may be used. Under this bill, an electronic document qualifies as a transferable record only if the issuer of the electronic document expressly agrees that the electronic document is a transferable record.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

AB755, s. 1 Section 1. 16.61 (7) (d) of the statutes is created to read:

AB755,12,3 16.61 (7) (d) This subsection does not apply to public records governed by s. 137.20.

AB755, s. 2 Section 2. 16.611 (2) (e) of the statutes is created to read:

AB755,13,3 16.611 (2) (e) This subsection does not apply to public records governed by s. 137.20.

AB755, s. 3 Section 3. 16.612 (2) (c) of the statutes is created to read:

AB755,13,6 16.612 (2) (c) This subsection does not apply to documents or public records governed by s. 137.20.

AB755, s. 4 Section 4. Chapter 137 (title) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB755,13,10 CHAPTER 137 authentications AND ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS AND records

AB755, s. 5 Section 5. Subchapter I (title) of chapter 137 [precedes s. 137.01] of the statutes is amended to read:

AB755,13,13 CHAPTER 137

AB755,13,17 SUBCHAPTER I NOTARIES AND COMMISSIONERS OF DEEDS; NONELECTRONIC NOTARIZATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

AB755, s. 6 Section 6. 137.01 (3) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB755,13,24 137.01 (3) (a) Every Except as authorized in s. 137.19, every notary public shall provide an engraved official seal which makes a distinct and legible impression or official rubber stamp which makes a distinct and legible imprint on paper. The impression of the seal or the imprint of the rubber stamp shall state only the following: "Notary Public," "State of Wisconsin" and the name of the notary. But any notarial seal in use on August 1, 1959, shall be considered in compliance.

AB755, s. 7 Section 7. 137.01 (4) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB755,14,3 137.01 (4) (a) Every official act of a notary public shall be attested by the notary public's written signature or electronic signature, as defined in s. 137.04 (2) 137.11 (8).