Friday, November 2, 2012

eSignature Analysis


Good Recent Resources


Research

o   Hawaii has adopted UETA for its state law (this is good)
o   Guidance that a customer used for their 2005  eSignature implementation
§  How eSignature should be captured
·         The “electronic impulse” that indicates consent (21 CFR Part11) needs to be
o   unique to individual (21 CFR Part11)
o   exclusive control of individual (21 CFR Part11)
o   in view of entire contract (scroll bars were strongly advised against)
§  How eSignature should be stored
·         “electronic impulse” that indicates consent (21 CFR Part11)
Pontification Alert:  Many opinions could be discussed on this, but ultimately the opinion of the attorney  or corporate counsel potentially defending the repudiation challenge is the one that counts.
·         Reproducible view of what signor saw when they “eSigned”
***A copy of what the signor saw is preferable
·         Name of the Signer
·         Date and time of signature
·         Tamper evident hash
o   Considerations
§  Not every “electronic impulse” that indicates consent (21 CFR Part11) is equally “unique” to an individual or practical.