AB755: Bill Text

LRB-3481/1

JTK/RM/RK/RC/RN/JK:cjs:pg

2003 - 2004 LEGISLATURE

2003 Assembly BILL 755

January 20, 2004 - Introduced by Representatives Nischke, Ladwig, Olsen, Kerkman, McCormick, Ott, Owens, Jensen, Miller, Montgomery and Hahn, cosponsored by Senators Kanavas, Cowles, Risser, S. Fitzgerald and Roessler. Referred to Committee on Financial Institutions.

AB755,1,7 An Act to repeal 137.04 and 137.06; to renumber and amend 137.05; to amend chapter 137 (title), subchapter I (title) of chapter 137 [precedes s. 137.01], 137.01 (3) (a), 137.01 (4) (a), 137.01 (4) (b), subchapter II (title) of chapter 137 [precedes 137.04], 224.30 (2), 228.01, 228.03 (2), 889.29 (1), 910.01 (1), 910.02 and 910.03; and to create 16.61 (7) (d), 16.611 (2) (e), 16.612 (2) (c), 137.11 to 137.24 and 137.26 of the statutes; relating to: electronic transactions and records.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

In 1999, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and recommended it for enactment in all the states. Generally, UETA establishes a legal framework that facilitates and validates certain electronic transactions. This bill enacts UETA in Wisconsin, with minor, nonsubstantive changes necessary to incorporate the act into the existing statutes.

Current law regarding electronic documents, transactions, and signatures

Currently, a combination of state and federal laws govern the use of electronic records, transactions, and signatures in this state. The most significant federal law in this regard is the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, commonly known as "E-sign," which was enacted after UETA was recommended for enactment in all of the states. With certain exceptions relating to existing or pending document retention requirements, E-sign took effect on October 1, 2000. Although much of E-sign represents new law in this state, some of the issues addressed in E-sign were addressed under state law previous to E-sign. With certain exceptions, E-sign preempts the state law to the extent that the treatment is inconsistent with the treatment under E-sign.

Public records

Under E-sign, any law that requires retention of a contract or document relating to a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce may be satisfied by retaining an electronic document, as long as the retained information satisfies certain requirements relating to accuracy and accessibility. Thus, under E-sign, a custodian of a public record relating to a covered transaction is likely permitted to destroy the original record if a proper electronic copy is retained. This authority is consistent with current provisions in state law that, in most cases, permit electronic retention of public records; however, the state law in certain cases imposes additional quality control and evidentiary preservation requirements that must be followed if a public record is to be retained electronically. It is unclear whether these additional requirements continue to apply or would be preempted as inconsistent with these provisions of E-sign.

Acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units

Current law relating to the acceptance of electronic documents by governmental units in this state is ambiguous. Under current state law, 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, as long as the governmental unit consents. Current state law does not require any governmental unit to accept documents in an electronic format, but provides that an electronic signature may be substituted for a manual signature if certain requirements are met.

E-sign, however, may require any governmental unit that is a "governmental agency" under E-sign (an undefined term) to accept certain electronic documents that relate to transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. E-sign states that it does not require any person to agree to use or accept electronic documents or electronic signatures, other than a governmental agency with respect to any document that is not a contract to which it is a party. Although no provision of E-sign specifically requires a governmental agency to use or accept electronic documents or signatures, under E-sign, a document relating to a covered transaction may not be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form. Thus, E-sign implies that a governmental agency may be required under E-sign to accept an electronic document relating to a covered transaction, as long as the document is not a contract to which the governmental agency is a party. This implication conflicts with another provision of E-sign, which states that E-sign generally does not limit or supersede any requirement imposed by a state regulatory agency (an undefined term) that documents be filed in accordance with specified standards or formats.

Electronic documents and signatures in commerce

Promissory notes

Currently, this state's version of the Uniform Commercial Code contains the primary legal framework allowing for transactions in this state involving promissory notes (commonly, loan documents). Title II of E-sign contains the primary legal framework relating to a new type of promissory note, termed a "transferrable record," which allows for the marketing of electronic versions of promissory notes in transactions secured by real property.

Other documents and records

The primary electronic commerce provisions of E-sign are contained in Title I, which establishes a legal framework relating to electronic transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Generally, Title I contains provisions that relate to the use of "electronic records" and signatures in covered transactions, the retention of "electronic records" of covered transactions, and the notarization and acknowledgement of covered electronic transactions. Title I 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 perceivable form. This definition likely covers such things as information stored on a computer disk or a voice mail recording. Because of this broad definition, in this analysis of E-sign, the term "document" is generally used in place of the term record. Title I also defines "transaction" broadly to mean any action or set of actions relating to the conduct of business, consumer, or commercial affairs between two or more persons, including governmental agencies.

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.