Digital Transformation: eSignature and ePayment News and Trends - November/December 2024

A special note to the readership acknowledging our longtime friend and partner, David Whitaker, who retires at the end of this year.

David has been advising on electronic commerce, digital financial services, and digital transformation for decades. He materially contributed to the drafting of Revised Articles 5 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as well as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), where he also chaired the Task Force on Scope and served as Reporter. Further, he advised industry participants on the creation and drafting of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

David has written extensively on both law and practice in this area. In particular, he was the Co-Reporter for the Standards and Procedures for electronic Records and Signatures (SPeRS) and co-authored Thomson Reuter’s The Law of Electronic Signatures. He has also appeared as a featured speaker at more than 250 conferences, seminars, and webinars on financial services law.

His depth of knowledge, industry perspective, and intellect has been instrumental to the growth of the digital sector. Thank you for your wise counsel, patience, and friendship.

David, you will be missed.

 

Today’s ever-shifting business environment means that consumers, businesses, employers, and employees all expect to transact digitally. To remain efficient and competitive, companies must digitally transform their businesses. Successful transformation and maintenance require careful planning and up-to-date knowledge to ensure smooth integration with existing business technology, positive customer experience, and ongoing regulatory compliance.

This newsletter includes legal insights and brief summaries of recently enacted federal and state laws, federal and state regulatory activities, fresh judicial precedent, and other important news to keep you up to date in the ever-evolving electronic environment.

If you’d like to discuss one of these items, or a project you’re considering, please reach out to one of the editors – and, if there is a topic you’d like us to cover in a future Insight, we’d love to hear from you.

 

INSIGHTS

CFPB issues new rule addressing supervision of nonbank payment providers

By Margo H.K. Tank, David Whitaker, Liz Caires, and Emily Honsa Hicks 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a new rule addressing its supervision of large nonbank companies offering US consumers certain digital funds transfer services and payment wallets and apps.

Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the CFPB is authorized to exercise supervisory authority over “larger participant[s] of a market for…consumer financial products or services, as defined by rules” the CFPB issues. CFPB is also authorized under the act to supervise any nonbank covered person that it “has reasonable cause to determine by order, after notice to the covered person and a reasonable opportunity . . . to respond . . . is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.”

Pursuant to these provisions, the CFPB has determined that there is a need for closer supervision over “larger participants” providing “general-use digital consumer payment applications.”
Read more. 

CFPB finalizes rule on personal finance data

By Margo H.K. Tank, David Whitaker, Liz Caires, Emily Honsa Hicks, and Michael Essiaw

As the financial services industry continues to see innovative fintechs join (and sometimes partner with) traditional brick-and-mortar institutions that dominate the marketplace, on October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized the Personal Financial Data Rights rule, promulgated under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The rule requires banks, credit unions, and other financial service providers to make consumers’ data available upon request to consumers and authorized third parties in a secure and reliable manner. The rule also defines obligations for third parties accessing consumers’ data, including important privacy protections.

An important aspect of the rule is its impact on nonbanks, including digital wallet providers. The rule notes that digital wallet providers qualify as financial institutions under Regulation E. Digital wallet providers hold valuable data, including income, expenses, fees, and spending, that provide a complete understanding of a consumer’s finances. As such, the rule includes digital wallet providers under the definition of a “data provider” subject to the various obligations under the rule.

A summary of rule, covered entities, and compliance deadlines are available here.

For more information, please contact the authors.

 

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

FEDERAL

CFPB

CFPB proposes rule to expand Regulation V to data brokers. On December 3, 2024, the CFPB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices.” The rule would amend Regulation V, which implemented the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), to incorporate definitions of consumer report and consumer reporting agency from the FCRA and to limit use of consumer personal information. The rule would also subject data brokers to regulation under the rule with respect to the sale of information. Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through March 3, 2025.

CFPB requests comments surrounding Regulation V and the reporting of coerced debt. On December 10, 2024, the CFPB announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for public input on Regulation V, which implemented the FCRA, for the ultimate issuance of a proposed rule addressing “coerced debt.” The proposed rulemaking comes in response to a petition submitted by several consumer rights agencies. Comments are requested surrounding the following subjects, among others, through March 7, 2025:

• The prevalence and harms of coerced debt, including via credit reporting
• Access issues for state and federal protections for survivors of economic abuse
• Challenges affecting specific populations of abuse victims
• Documentation or attestation requirements to establish that debt was coerced

Federal Reserve

Interagency statement on regulated institutions duties regarding elder financial exploitation. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), CFPB, FDIC, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and certain state financial regulators issued a statement on December 4, 2024 containing examples of risk management practices for supervised institutions to combat elder financial exploitation. Tools referenced in the practices included employee training, the use of transaction holds and legally permissible disbursement delays, trusted contacts, reporting to authorities, and the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). The statement includes appendixes with federal and state resources.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York issues report on risks of digital assets to financial stability. In November, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published an Economic Policy Review titled, “Financial Stability Implications of Digital Assets.” The review provides a comprehensive analysis of the financial stability risks associated with the digital asset ecosystem. It adapts the Federal Reserve’s framework for assessing how systemic risk in the traditional financial system applies to the digital asset ecosystem, focusing on vulnerabilities such as valuation pressures, leverage, funding risk, and interconnectedness.

The review hypothesizes that fragility in the digital asset space could destabilize the broader financial system. The analysis covers various sectors within the digital ecosystem, including crypto assets, stablecoins, centralized crypto lenders, centralized crypto exchanges, and decentralized finance (DeFi), and discusses how stress in these areas could potentially spill over into the traditional financial system. The review notes that crypto assets, such as bitcoin and Ether, are prone to significant price declines, which can be amplified by the use of leverage and interconnectedness within the digital ecosystem.

The document also discusses the risks associated with stablecoins, pointing to the collapse of TerraUSD (an algorithmic stablecoin) as an example. Centralized crypto lenders and exchanges are highlighted as additional sources of leverage and funding risk, with their failures potentially leading to broader financial instability. Additionally, the document explores the role of DeFi protocols in creating interconnectedness and leverage within the digital asset ecosystem. Despite these risks, the review concludes that the overall contribution of digital assets to systemic risk remains limited, though this could change as the digital ecosystem grows and becomes more integrated with traditional financial markets.

FinCEN

FinCEN alert on deepfake fraud schemes targeting financial institutions. FinCEN issued an alert on November 13, 2024 intended to assist financial institutions in the identification of deepfake fraud schemes, including types of schemes and red flags, and associated Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements. According to the alert, there has been an increase in submission of SARs associated with deepfakes, especially the use of deepfake identity documentation.

FSOC

FSOC report recommends federal crypto regulation. On December 6, 2024, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) issued its annual report for 2024. The report covers emerging threats and vulnerabilities in US financial stability, including recommendations for mitigation, as well as covering significant regulatory developments. The report includes discussion related to:

• Cybersecurity and the increase in cyber incidents
  
  
• Supervision of third-party service providers
  
  
• Growth in the market value of digital assets, including a recommendation for a federal prudential framework for the issuance of stablecoins and explicit federal regulation of nonsecurity crypto assets

FTC

FTC finalizes amendments to Telemarketing Sales Rule. On December 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule to enhance consumer protections and address emerging telemarketing practices. The updated rule includes provisions to combat deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices, such as prohibiting misrepresentations about the cost, terms, and conditions of goods or services and particularly tech scams. It also introduces stricter requirements for obtaining express informed consent from consumers before charging them, and mandates clearer disclosures about the nature of telemarketing calls. The rule will be effective January 9, 2025.

FTC announces final rule to ban junk ticket and hotel fees. On December 12, 2024, the FTC announced a new rule aimed at eliminating junk fees associated with ticket sales and hotel bookings. This rule targets hidden charges that consumers often encounter when purchasing event tickets or booking hotel rooms, which can significantly inflate the final cost. The rule will be effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

FTC opposes false and misleading claims about AI facial recognition technology. The FTC issued a proposed consent order on December 3, 2024 surrounding an investigation of false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims that Intellivision Technologies Corp., an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered facial recognition service technology company, made regarding a lack of gender and racial bias in its technology. The order would prohibit Intellivision – whose software has been incorporated into a number of consumer products, including security systems – from misrepresenting accuracy and efficacy, comparative performance, and spoof detection accuracy and efficacy related to its facial recognition technology. The proposed consent order will be open for public comment for 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

OCC

Updated UDAAP handbook. On December 3, 2024, the OCC issued an updated version 1.1 of the OCC’s "Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices" Comptroller’s Handbook Booklet, containing examination information related to bank supervision of UDAAP violations. The updates include clarity regarding risk management and overdraft services; updates regarding electronic media, data protection, and information security; updated UDAP and UDAAP risk indicators; and other updates.

NIST

NIST seeks comments on updated digital signature guide. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is inviting public comments on its Special Publication (SP) 800-102, Recommendation for Digital Signature Timeliness, originally published in 2009. This publication addresses the use of timestamps to verify when a digital signature was created. NIST aims to understand the current implementation of these recommendations and the trusted timestamp authorities in use. The public comment period is open until January 14, 2025, and feedback can be sent to cryptopubreviewboard@nist.gov with “Comments on SP 800-102” in the subject line. Comments will be posted on the Crypto Publication Review Project site, excluding contact information. 

FSB

FSB issues recommendations to enhance cross-border payments. On December 12, 2024, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released a set of recommendations aimed at improving data flows and regulatory consistency in cross-border payments. These recommendations address frictions such as differing data requirements, data sharing restrictions, and high data storage costs, which hinder the efficiency of cross-border payments. The FSB is establishing a Forum on Cross-Border Payments Data, and market stakeholders are invited to join the FSB’s Taskforce on Legal, Regulatory, and Supervisory matters.  

STATE

UCC Article 12

UCC Article 12 on controllable electronic records. Illinois and Arizona are joining the 22 states and Washington, DC in adopting the 2022 Amendments to the UCC, including Article 12 governing property rights of intangible digital assets as Controllable Electronic Records (CERs). For more information on CERs under UCC Article 12, see our prior articles from May 2023, July 2023, April 2024, and June 2024.

• Illinois: SB 3696 was signed by Governor JB Pritzker on August 9, 2024 and takes effect January 1, 2025
  
  
• Pennsylvania: SB 1084 became effective August 30 but does not include a definition of “electronic money” such as digital currency

Decentralized Autonomous Organization Act

New Hampshire’s Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Act. Enacted on July 26, 2024, the act represents a framework for conducting governance and transactions among participants in smart contracts, cryptocurrencies, digital assets, and other blockchain technologies. Among other things, the act: (1) establishes regulations and the legal framework and operational guidelines for DAOs, (2) provides for provisions on judicial deregistration, forks in blockchains, restructuring, failure events, and the application of general business organization law and other relevant laws, and (3) provides for the New Hampshire DAO registry.

Digital assets and virtual currency

Texas enters consent order with cryptocurrency service. On October 28, 2024, the Texas Banking Commissioner announced the entry into a consent order against Payward Interactive, Inc. dba Kraken and certain Kraken affiliates. As further described in the order, “Kraken provides custodial and transmission services relating to sovereign currency and various categories of virtual currency, including sovereign-backed stablecoin (stablecoin).” Although the order permits Kraken to continue conducting money transmission in Texas, it notes that Kraken both failed to qualify for and retain the requite Texas money transmission and, moreover, failed to provide the Texas Banking Commissioner the necessary information to transfer such license to TradeStation, which Kraken agreed to acquire on February 2, 2024. The order became effective October 18, 2024, and, among other things, requires Kraken to maintain its injection of additional capital, to improve its financial reporting, and to pay an administrative penalty of $250,000.

Mobile drivers’ licenses

Certain TSA checkpoints allow mobile drivers licenses. Certain US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints, including locations in Iowa, California, and Puerto Rico, are now allowing the use of mobile drivers licenses or digital IDs (mDLs) for screening identification. At the time of publication, a number of states have either adopted mDLs or are in the process of doing so. Among those are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia. Montana is expected to launch mDLs soon, as is Arkansas, and app support varies by state. In the European Union (EU), states are tasked by eIDAS 2.0, the Digital Identity Regulation, to implement a national digital identity wallet by 2026.

Money transmission

Illinois enacts Uniform Money Transmission Act. On August 9, 2024, Illinois joined 25 other states in enacting the Uniform Money Transmission Act. The act reflects the increasing standardization nationwide of a single set of requirements, including capital requirements, surety bonds, and permissible investments for the supervision and regulation of money transmitters. Among other things, the act: (1) makes changes in provisions concerning letters of credit and provisions concerning the circumstances under which orders to suspend or revoke a license may be issued, (2) adds a provision concerning cease and desist orders and civil penalties, (3) provides that a provider of payroll processing services that was not licensed pursuant under prior law shall not be required to be licensed and comply with the act until the specified date.

Remote online notarization (RON)

New York certificate of conformity no longer required. New York State has enacted SB 2271, which amends the Real Property Law and Civil Practice Law to streamline the recordation process for notarized documents. Effective immediately, the new law eliminates the requirement for a certificate of conformity for acknowledgments or proofs taken outside of New York State, provided they are accompanied by the signature and title of a notarial officer. This change was intended to simplify the recording, filing, and registering of documents in New York by county recorders, ensuring that notarized documents from other states can be processed more efficiently. The amendments also clarify that the signature and title of an out-of-state notarial officer are prima facie evidence of the officer’s authority, further facilitating the acceptance of such documents.

State licensing

California’s regulation of debt settlement services to begin. Beginning February 2025, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (CDFPI) will register and regulate debt settlement services, education financing, income-based advances, and student debt relief providers under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The CDFPI will require providers of the following financial products and services to register and submit data to the CDFPI concerning:

• Debt settlement services
• Student debt relief services
• Private postsecondary education financing, and
• Income-based advances, or earned wage access, products.

Financial service providers covered by the new regulations are required to file an application to register by February 15, 2025, to continue operating legally in California.

Security in electronic transacting

California proposes cybersecurity regulations. On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) initiated a formal rulemaking for regulations on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments, and automated decision-making technologies (ADMT). The proposed regulations will seek to regulate AI, a subset of ADMT. The proposed rules would, among other things, provide consumers the right to opt out of the use of ADMT and to appeal significant decisions relating to a business’s use of ADMT. The proposed rules would also require businesses to conduct risk assessments related to certain uses of ADMT. In addition, the proposed regulations would require covered firms to conduct cybersecurity audits. These businesses would be required to certify to the CPPA annually that the cybersecurity audit was completed. The comment period opened November 22, 2024, and will end January 14, 2025.

New York DFS issues cybersecurity guidance. On October 16, 2024, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued guidance in the form of an industry letter to regulated entities addressing and combating risks arising from AI. The guidance builds on the NYDFS’s cybersecurity regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500). The memorandum highlights two principles threats in this rapidly developing area: (1) AI-enabled social engineering, which refers to the use of AI to hone traditional social engineering tactics that manipulate individuals into revealing sensitive information by creating highly personalized and convincing messages, and (2) AI-enhanced cybersecurity attacks, where AI is leveraged to identify vulnerabilities, quickly adapt strategies, and perpetrate attacks by analyzing large amounts of data to exploit patterns and weaknesses. The memorandum recommended that regulated entities:

• Perform a cybersecurity risk assessment at least annually that addresses AI-related risks
  
  
• Adequately diligence and manage their contractual relationships with their third-party service providers, particularly ones that will access such entities’ information systems and nonpublic information (NPI)
  
  
• Consider using technology with liveness detection or texture analysis to verify that biometric input is from a live person as Part 500 will require regulated entities to implement multifactor authentication beginning in November 2025
  
  
• Ensure that “all personnel are aware of the risks posed by AI, procedures adopted by the organization to mitigate risks related to AI, and how to respond to AI-enhanced social engineering attacks”
  
  
• Monitor for unusual query behaviors that might indicate an attempt to extract NPI and blocking queries from personnel that might expose NPI to a public AI product or system
  
  
• Implement data minimization practices, including to dispose of NPI that is no longer necessary, including NPI used for AI purposes
  
  

CASE LAW

FEDERAL

Biometrics

US courts address biometric data repurposing. A potential class action, Pierce et al v. Photobucket, Inc., 1:24-cv-03432 (D Colo. 2024), has been filed in a Colorado federal court against photo storage site Photobucket and two unnamed companies for alleged biometric data privacy violations across multiple states. The lawsuit claims Photobucket violated statutes similar to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by changing its privacy policy to sell images from dormant accounts, including face and iris biometric data, as training data for generative AI models.

The plaintiffs argue that Photobucket’s emails to users, which required consent to use their biometric data or face deletion, were fraudulent and coercive, failing to provide informed consent. The complaint also cites laws in New York, California, and Virginia, and consumer protection laws in states such as Colorado. Over 100 million users could be eligible for damages, with at least 1 Illinois user already informed that their biometric data may have been sold. Courts are distinguishing between selling biometric data and using it for algorithm training.

Courts split as to whether amendments to BIPA apply to ongoing cases. In Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC, No. 24 C 1925, 2024 WL 4766297 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed a lawsuit brought by an employee on March 7, 2024 against his employer for alleged violations of Sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(d) of BIPA, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq. The plaintiff brought the lawsuit in federal court, expecting that the amount in controversy would exceed $75,000 because a prior court had found that a separate claim accrued for each violation of the act. However, on August 2, 2024, the Legislature amended BIPA, which limited plaintiffs to a single recovery for damages where the violation of BIPA involved the same biometric identifiers and information via the same method (such as daily fingerprint scans to enter a workplace).

In this case, however, the court determined that because the amendment was a clarification, not a substantive change in the law; the law (as amended on August 2, 2024, and including the damage cap) is applicable to the case. The court found that the express limitation of damages in the amendment was consistent with BIPA’s pre-amendment text, so the plaintiff would not be entitled to multiple recoveries based on repeated violations that involved the same biometric identifiers and information and the same method. 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 14/15(b), 14/15(d), 14/20(b). Because the plaintiff’s potential recovery for the alleged violations could not reach $75,000, the federal court found that they did not have subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. A similar dismissal followed in another case, Amigon v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., No. 24-cv-01934 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024), before the same judge.

However, several other judges have found the opposite – that the amendment is not retroactive – in the following cases: Rojo v. Homer Tree Care, Inc., No. 23-L-8588 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 30, 2024); Gagen v. Mandell Menkes, No. 2023-L-008294 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2024); and Wallace v. Vee Park, LLC, No. 24-L-4560 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 10, 2024). 

STATE

Jurisdiction

New York Court finds digital presence establishes personal jurisdiction. In Applied Healthcare Rsch. Mgmt. v. Ibrahim, No. 23-01880, 2024 WL 4798691 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2024), a corporation sought personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state consultant who allegedly failed to deliver promised services. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, found that the contract in question required the consultant to conduct activities in New York (the forum state) despite the consultant never physically entering New York. The court noted the explicit language of the contract that required the consultant to “project themselves” into to New York to retrieve digital files from corporation’s New York-based servers and that the contract also explicitly established that “[a]ll communication will be through [plaintiff’s] email server, phone and intranet.” Because of these (and other) factors, the court found that the knowing, repeated transmission of electronic files over the internet to and from New York supported the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under the provision of New York’s long-arm statute related to transaction of business within New York (N.Y. CPLR § 302(a) (1)).

Electronic signatures

Ohio judge’s deficient electronic signature upheld. In Grand Voiture D’Ohio Societe des 40 et 8 v. Montgomery Cnty. Voiture No. 34 la Societe 40 et 8, 2024-Ohio-5410, an Ohio trial court issued an order for contempt against a defendant, and after the trial judge recused them, a subsequently assigned visiting judge issued an order imposing sanctions against the defendant. In contesting those sanctions, the defendant argued that the visiting judge did not sign the docket entry according to the court’s own local court rules surrounding electronic signatures on filings. The local rules indicated that “eFiled documents may be signed by a Judge or judicial officer via a digitized image of his or her signature combined with a digital signature.”

On the order in question, the visiting judge signed by typing his name with “/s/” before his name. The court acknowledged that “[the order] did not strictly comply with the local rules because his signature was not a digitized image of his signature,” but also found that, “Nevertheless, it still qualified as an electronic signature since it had an otherwise recognized digital/electronic signature.”

The court then looked to the definition of “electronic signature” in the Ohio UETA (ORC 1306.01(H)), as well as case law establishing that an electronic signature satisfies a legal requirement for a signature – in their determination that the electronic signature of the judge was attributable to the judge based on the context and circumstances – and should not be denied legal effect just because the court did not strictly comply with the local rule. The court noted that the rule was procedural and intended to facilitate case management for the convenience of the local courts and practitioners, and cited case law supporting that the local rules of court “do not implicate constitutional rights” such that deficiencies in the signature should deny its effect. 

Digital identity

eWills

Video recording not enforceable will. In Matter of Est. of Beck, 2024 MT 249, 418 Mont. 416, 557 P.3d 1255, the Montana Supreme Court addressed whether a phone video recording made by the defendant four days prior to his death constituted a will under state law. In the recording, the decedent stated, “if anything happens to me whatsoever, I give all my possessions, everything, to … my brother.” The recording further included his intention to not to give anything to a named nonrelative who was not otherwise entitled. The decedent was survived by a daughter who filed for appointment to administer his estate without a will, and also initiated a wrongful death action. The decedent’s brother sought to intervene by petitioning to probate the recording as the decedent’s will, which would have potentially made him the primary devisee, and the decedent’s daughter argued that the recording did not qualify as a will under Montana’s statute.

After ordering additional briefing as to whether the recording could be a will, the district court ruled that the video did not meet the statutory requirements for a will, emphasizing that a document must be a physical paper or digital file capable of being written upon, signed, and witnessed. However, the district court took care to distinguish a video “from electronic versions of writings, such as electronic notes, because those could satisfy the definition of a writing or document that would ‘become indistinguishable from any other writing once printed out.’”

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, indicating that even liberally construing “document” to consider changes in technology, and noting the brother’s argument that the Restatement (Second) of Property: Donative Transfers §§ 33.1 cmt. a, 32.1 cmt. b. indicates that a donative document of transfer could arguably extend to a recording of spoken words or “any other technological development that in clear and convincing manner appropriately manifests the donor’s intention to make a gift,” neither the comments to the restatement nor the expansive language in the restatement were adopted by the Montana Legislature. Therefore, a video “lacking any form of statutory authentication” could not be a document, and so could also not be a will.

 

DLA Piper news

The Financial Times recognizes DLA Piper as one of the Most Innovative Law Firms in North America. 

Chambers FinTech Legal 2025 ranks DLA Piper in four categories:

• Fintech: Legal
• Fintech: Payments & Lending
• Fintech: Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies
• Fintech: Data Protection & Cyber Security

Margo Tank was also individually recognized in the Blockchain & Digital Assets and Payments & Lending categories.

Emily Honsa Hicks was recently named to the D.C. Bar Association’s 2023 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, among many other DLA Piper attorneys.

 

RECENT EVENTS

Emily Honsa Hicks presented on the topic of AI Intelligence and Consumer Financial Services at the Conference on Consumer Finance Law’s Fall Consumer Financial Services Conference on November 14, 2024 at Southern Methodist’s Dedman School of Law.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

DLA Piper published its global financial services report, Financial Futures: Disruption in US and Global Financial Services, after asking nearly 800 financial services decision makers around the world about key disruptors impacting senior leaders in financial institutions and fintechs. Check out our report and read about the challenges and opportunities that AI, digitization, and ESG pose for the financial services industry.

DLA Piper’s Tech Index 2024: Riding the next big wave: Is the tech industry buoyant or sinking? Our Tech Index 2024 explores this topic and more, drawing insights from 1,200 industry leaders and policymakers across the world. While our previous editions focused primarily on Europe, we have expanded the scope of this year’s Index to include all major regions, offering a more comprehensive view of the sector’s growth prospects, anticipated challenges, and emerging opportunities. Some key insights include the following:

• 63 percent of respondents view AI as the most important frontier for growth. Yet, AI adoption is not being driven by CEOs.
  
  
• 50 percent report that ESG is more of a priority now than in 2022. However, 61 percent do not have a comprehensive ESG framework – or any framework at all.
  
  
• 98 percent see opportunities in data monetization. But only 38 percent employ data scientists to harness these opportunities.

Margo Tank and David Whitaker co-authored The Law of Electronic Signatures, 2024 Edition (Thomson Reuters), an essential guide to electronic signatures and records laws, including the context in which the laws were adopted and the ways in which the authors believe the drafters intended them to be interpreted. The authors have more than 30 years combined experience, including involvement with the drafting and passage of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN), the preparation of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), the creation of the Standards and Procedures for electronic Records and Signatures (SPeRS™), and serving as counsel to the Electronic Signatures and Records Association. The insights they provide will be indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the impact of, and the liability associated with, using electronic signatures and electronic records.

These insights include:

• Details on the legal requirements for using electronic signatures and records, including delivery, presentation, signing, and record retention
  
  
• Comprehensive tables itemizing the state variations to the uniform UETA language
  
  
• Special considerations for using electronic signatures and records in connection with emerging and evolving technology
  
  
• Using electronic records and signatures in specialized transactions and documents, such as securities, chattel paper, and mortgages
  
  
• Analysis of the interplay between ESIGN, UETA, and many other key laws and regulations
  
  
• Identification and summaries of recent legal developments and court cases impacting electronic signatures and records

David Stier, Emily Honsa Hicks, and Eric Hall co-authored the chapter on anti-money laundering (AML), know-your-customer guidelines, and the Bank Secrecy Act and provided general editorial assistance on other chapters in the newly published book, Banking [on] Blockchain: A Legal and Regulatory Primer, published by the American Bar Association. The book is a comprehensive guide to the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding the use of blockchain technology, decentralization, and digital assets within the financial services industry. It also explores the potential benefits and challenges of using these technologies and offers guidance on how financial institutions can navigate the complex regulatory environment.

Emily Honsa Hicks co-authored the “Electronic Signatures and Records” chapter in the Consumer Financial Services Answer Book, 2024 Edition, published by Practicing Law Institute.

Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Regulation, published by the American Bar Association and co-edited by Deborah Meshulam and Michael Fluhr, includes chapters by Meshulam and Fluhr as well as by Margo Tank.

The MBA Compliance Essentials Remote Online Notarization State Surveys, developed by Liz Caires and Margo Tank, provides a comprehensive look at RON requirements in each state that has enacted RON legislation. These fully editable surveys are organized by category of requirements, including registration, technology, seal and signature, certificates of RON acts, journal, authentication, session, recording, and additional requirements. Companies can purchase the full package, which includes surveys for all states that have enacted RON legislation along with a matrix summarizing state requirements – otherwise, companies can purchase information about individual states as needed.

 

Read

Minimizing AI risk - Top points for compliance officers

California implements new AI and software regulations for insurers

California enacts sweeping new AI regulation

National security risks headline new AML requirements for investment advisers – and more to come?

Reporting companies should remain flexible given uncertain future of the Corporate Transparency Act after Texas court grants nationwide injunction

 

Listen

Navigating the impact of AI in the financial services sector

 

In case you missed it

Read the latest issue of our bulletin Blockchain and Digital Assets News and Trends

Read the latest issue of our bulletin Bank Regulatory News and Trends

 

Contacts

Learn more about our eSignatures and ePayments practice by contacting:

Margo H.K. Tank

David Whitaker

Liz Caires

Emily Honsa Hicks

The editors send their thanks and appreciation to Marc Aronson and Raymond Janicko for their contributions to this and prior issues.