“If the contract is electronic, a third-party certificate proving the defendant’s signature on the contract should be provided, in accordance with the provisions of Law 6/2020, without any evidence to that effect having been provided. Therefore, pursuant to Article 217 of the LEC, the claim must be dismissed in its entirety.”

This is the main conclusion reached by the Court of First Instance No. 5 of Fuenlabrada, in Judgment No. 191/2023, which has resoundingly dismissed the claim, due to the lack of any evidence of identification and signature. It added that the use of the PIN, “In no way can this be equated with an electronic signature.”

Currently, electronic contracting has increased exponentially, becoming commonplace for any process or service, often leaving in-person contracting behind. Considering that we’re moving toward paperless policies, what’s the problem? The main one is that the increase in remote contracting has been accompanied by a relaxation of identification and formalities that guarantee the legal effectiveness and regulatory compliance of the contract.
This laxity, which carries enormous risk, is not limited to identification, but continues with the information contained and the sending of pre-contractual and contractual documentation. But do we really know the consequences, risk, and scope?

It seems not. Although in this specific case, it cost €2,377.81 + court costs. What would happen if the market took note and all users in the same situation refused to pay? We’d agree that it would cost millions. Not only in court costs, but also in lost loans.

But what if we broaden the focus to other types of contracts, both commercial and labor? In this case, companies that do not use duly qualified services from Qualified Trust Service Providers would find themselves in a potential situation of systemic risk for the entity.

For those who might be tempted to think, “it’s the company’s problem.” Let’s remember that contracts are between two parties. What would happen if, instead of saving us a loan, we were denied a critical health operation? Or were unable to credit a deposit? We should all do this exercise.

Systems such as sending an email or SMS code to a phone number whose ownership is not certified, or online acceptance without identification through electronic means based on trust systems, do not comply with identification standards and are also methods used in fraudulent contracting by those who impersonate another person. The use of recognized digital certificates should be the standard and standardized method.

ANF AC, as a Qualified Trust Service Provider, carries out the task of reliably verifying and identifying the identity of the contracting party when formalizing a distance contract, providing them with a qualified electronic certificate. Furthermore, it provides the market with accredited, qualified, and strictly audited solutions for carrying out electronic contract formalization processes, with full legal guarantees.

These will be essential elements to determine whether the consent has been validly issued by the person listed as the contracting party and is therefore binding.
Accredited by the Ministry of Digital Transformation of the Spanish Government, ANF AC offers a range of services and solutions outlined in the eIDAS Regulation 910/2014, which will ensure legal security and effectiveness in electronic transactions, taking the signing of contracts a step further.

Contrary to popular belief, using reliable identification measures that provide effectiveness and legal certainty is neither more expensive nor does it hinder the user experience. Therefore, let’s learn to differentiate them and learn how to use them.