United States: eSignature And ePayment News And Trends - July 31, 2019

Last Updated: August 6 2019
Article by Margo H. K. Tank, David Whitaker, Liz Caires and Andrew G.

A fact of business today is that customers – both consumers and other businesses – and employees expect to transact digitally. To remain competitive, companies find themselves increasing their efforts to digitally transform their businesses.

Successfully implementing this transformation requires careful planning to ensure regulatory compliance, a smooth integration with existing business technology and a positive customer experience.

This is our seventh bulletin for 2019, again aiming to help companies identify important and significant news and legal developments impacting digital offerings. Each issue will feature in-depth insight on a timely and important current topic.

In this issue, we provide an analysis on recent developments to the ACH rules that affect the processing of ACH debit entries. In addition, we will cover recently enacted federal and state laws, federal and state regulatory activities, fresh judicial precedent and other important news.

For related information regarding blockchain and digital assets, please see our monthly bulletin Blockchain and Digital Assets News and Trends.


ACH Debit Entries: NACHA rule change and guidance from CFPB consent order - takeaways on compliance

By R. David Whitaker

The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) issues operating rules to govern, among other things, Automated Clearing House (ACH) Debit Entries. NACHA has announced upcoming rule changes regarding ACH Debit Entries, which will require implementation and planning to ensure timely compliance. Additionally, a recent consent order issued by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) provides some insight into what the CFPB considers to be a reasonable investigation of an alleged erroneous or unauthorized ACH Debit Entry under Regulation E.

Without proper consideration of the NACHA rule changes and the consent order, banks processing ACH debits may be exposed to unnecessary risk. Read more.



Alternative scoring models

  • CFPB releases Fair Lending Report with emphasis on use of alternative credit scoring models: On June 28, 2019, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) issued its seventh Fair Lending Report, covering the year 2018. The report highlights how the CFPB used the following tools to increase the focus on fair lending: (1) hosting a symposium on credit invisibility; (2) establishing collaboration with the new Office of Innovation; (3) monitoring a No-Action Letter; and (4) prioritizing supervisory reviews of third-party credit scoring models to further the CFPB's interest in identifying potential benefits and risks associated with the use of alternative data and modeling techniques. Specifically regarding alternative credit scoring models:
    • The CFPB is exploring alternative credit scoring models as part of its priority to "continue to explore cutting-edge fair lending issues," such as "how consumer-friendly innovation can increase access to credit to all consumers," especially to "unbanked and underbanked consumers and their communities."
    • The CFPB announced the creation of its Office of Innovation, which "encourages responsible innovations that could be implemented in a consumer-friendly way to help serve populations currently underserved by the mainstream credit system."
    • In 2018, the Office of Fair Lending recommended supervisory reviews of third-party credit scoring models. Lenders often rely on third-party credit scoring models when making credit decisions, and the number of alternative credit scoring models with new technology (ie, models based on information beyond a consumer's credit history) has proliferated in recent years.
    • Another interest of the CFPB in alternative credit scoring models is to help expand access to credit for consumers who are credit invisible. Other potential benefits associated with the models include "enhanced creditworthiness predictions, more timely information about a consumer, lower costs, and operational improvements."
    • Additionally, the CFPB continued to monitor Upstart Network, Inc. pursuant to the no-action letter the Bureau issued to Upstart in 2017 (which stated that the Bureau did not intend to recommend supervisory or enforcement action against Upstart). Upstart is an online lending platform that uses machine learning to help making credit and pricing decisions for consumers. The platform uses credit score, income and alternative criteria, such as education and employment history, to make its decisions. The CFPB receives information from Upstart about the loan applications it receives, how it decides which loans to approve, and how it plans to mitigate risks to consumers in an effort to help learn how the technology expands access to credit for credit invisible consumers and how new technology complies with fair credit lending laws.


  • Duffy submits resolution recognizing the benefits of the digitization of the mortgage process: On July 17, 2019, Representative Sean Duffy (WI-7) submitted a resolution (H. Res. 500), which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, recognizing the benefits of the digitization of the mortgage process. The resolution notes that FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the VA allow for the use of electronic signatures on mortgage documents insured or guaranteed by their programs. Representative Duffy advocated that the House of Representatives urge the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to continue to support Ginnie Mae's effort to accept eNotes and electronically signed mortgage documents. He also urged that the House of Representatives support adoption by the states of consistent standards for the digitization of the mortgage process.

Blockchain and digital identity

  • NIST publishes white paper on blockchain digital management approaches:On July 9, 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published a draft white paper titled "A Taxonomic Approach to Understanding Emerging Blockchain Identity Management Systems." NIST notes that blockchain technology has the potential to support novel data ownership and governance models with built-in control and consent mechanisms, which may benefit both users and businesses by alleviating concerns over single points of failure, lack of interoperability, and privacy issues such as encouraging mass data collection and user tracking. This paper categorizes these systems based on differences in architecture, governance models, and other salient features. The white paper describes emerging standards and use cases. Comments are due by August 9, 2019.


  • FTC settles charges against payment processor and its affiliates: The FTC settled charges against Allied Wallet, its CEO, and two other officers related to knowingly processing fraudulent transactions to consumers' accounts. The FTC had alleged that Allied Wallet knowingly processed payments for merchants that engaged in fraud, such as merchants engaged in phantom debt collection schemes, pyramid schemes, and business coaching schemes. The defendants, the FTC said, helped the merchants hide their fraud from the banks and credit card networks, and the deceptive practices included creating fake foreign shell companies to open accounts in their names, submitting false information to merchant banks, and working to evade card network rules designed to prevent fraud. The order against Allied Wallet and its CEO imposed a $110 million equitable monetary judgment; the order against one officer imposed a $320,429.82 equitable monetary judgment, and the order against the other officer permanently banned him from payment processing and ordered him to pay $1 million in equitable monetary relief.

Virtual currency

  • IRS sending letters to virtual currency owners advising them to pay back taxes. On July 26, 2019, the IRS announced that it "has begun sending letters to taxpayers with virtual currency transactions that potentially failed to report income and pay the resulting tax from virtual currency transactions or did not report their transactions properly."



  • NYDFS announces newly created Research and Innovation Division: On July 23, 2019, the NYDFS announced the creation of the new Research and Innovation Division. The new division will house the NYDFS's division responsible for licensing and supervising virtual currencies, and it will assess new efforts to use technology to address financial exclusion; identify and protect consumer data rights; and encourage innovations in the financial services marketplace to preserve New York's competitiveness as a financial innovation hub.
  • Utah regulatory sandbox launched. On July 2, the second US fintech regulatory sandbox launched, this time in Utah. The sandbox was created under HB378 – see DLA Piper's coverage of this development here. The sandbox enables money transmission, blockchain, cryptocurrency, and peer-to-peer lending companies in the state to seek regulatory relief as they work on innovative financial projects. No applications for the Utah sandbox have yet been received. Arizona was the first state to launch a fintech sandbox in July 2018, which we reviewed in the September issue.

Virtual currency

  • NYDFS grants two new bitlicenses: On July 15, 2019, NYDFS announced that it had granted virtual currency licenses to Seed Digital Commodities Market LLC (SCXM) and Zero Hash LLC, and that it approved Zero Hash for a money transmitter license.SCXM and Zero Hash are both subsidiaries of Seed CX Ltd.



  • FDIC finalizes rule regarding allowing signature cards to be signed electronically: On July 16, 2019, the FDIC finalized its proposed rule (covered here) that would provide an alternative method to satisfy the "signature card" requirement for determining co-ownership of an account, as well as add a conforming amendment that would allow the signature card to be signed electronically. In the commentary to the final rule, the FDIC noted, "The final rule does not include any particular requirements with respect to electronic signatures, and is merely intended to clarify for IDIs [insured depository institutions] and depositors that the signature card requirement may be satisfied electronically. If an IDI's records and processes establish an electronic signature with respect to a joint account for purposes of the E-Sign Act, the FDIC's signature requirement would be satisfied." The final rule takes effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.



  • Florida creates Blockchain Task Force:On June 25, 2019, the Florida governor approved a bill (HB 1393) that establishes within the Department of Financial Services a Blockchain Task Force to foster the expansion of the blockchain industry in Florida, to recommend policies and state investments, and to issue a report to the governor and the legislature. The task force shall study if and how state, county, and municipal governments can benefit from a transition to a blockchain-based system for recordkeeping, data security, financial transactions, and service delivery and identify ways to improve government interaction with businesses and the public. Note that this bill appears substantially similar to SB 1024, which the governor approved on May 23, 2019, and was previously covered here.

Virtual currency

  • Rhode Island enacts law requiring licensure for virtual currency transmission: On July 15, 2019, the governor of Rhode Island signed two bills into law (HB 5847 and SB 753) that require virtual currency businesses that provide currency transmission to be licensed and bonded in the state. Such businesses must also to provide specified disclosures to their users. The law excludes from the definition of "virtual currency" (1) value given in a merchant rewards program which value cannot be exchanged for legal tender, bank credit or virtual currency; (2) value issued by a publisher and used exclusively within an online gaming platform; and (3) "native digital token used in a proprietary blockchain service platform."



Online contract formation

  • Court finds plaintiff did not agree to terms and conditions despite clicking "Continue" with hyperlinks to terms immediately above: In Anand v. Heath, et al., No. 19-0016, 2019 WL 2716213 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019), the court denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration because it concluded that the plaintiff "was not placed on reasonable notice that she was manifesting assent to the terms and conditions by clicking the 'Continue' button." Even though directly above the Continue button was the language "I understand and agree to the Terms & Conditions," the court stated that courts typically "will give effect to hybridwrap terms where the button required to perform the action manifesting assent ... is located directly next to a hyperlink to the terms and a notice informing the user that, by clicking the button, the user is agreeing to those terms" (emphasis added). Here, the court concluded that the agreement was unforceable because nothing expressly linked the "I understand and agree" language to the "Continue" button. The court stated that the "mere proximity of a terms and conditions hyperlink to a button that the user must click to proceed does not equate to an affirmative manifestation of assent to the terms and conditions."
  • In insurance dispute, court concludes that question of fact exists regarding whether email was sent and received: In Markel Insurance Co. v. United Emergency Medical Services v. Insurance Service Center, 2019 WL 2716199 (N.D. Ind. June 27, 2019), the court found that there are issues of fact surrounding an email sent by United Emergency Medical Services (United) to Insurance Service Center (ISC), which operated as a "producer" for the plaintiff Markel, whereby United sought to re-add a vehicle to its insurance policy with the plaintiff. United brought ISC into the litigation when United filed a third-party complaint alleging that if the court determined that the plaintiff did not provide coverage to United for an accident, that lack of coverage was due to ISCs acts or omissions. The case arose because a vehicle operated by United was involved in an accident, and that vehicle was not listed on the insurance policy issued by plaintiff (the vehicle had been removed from the issued insurance policy). United argued that its employee sent an email to an ISC employee, cc'ing another United employee, requesting that the vehicle at issue be added back to the insurance policy. The ISC employee did not confirm the request. Eight months later, the accident occurred involving that vehicle. The plaintiff denied insurance for the accident. ISC argued that its employee did not receive the email. The United employee did not receive a delivery failure message. However, in past dealings between these two employees, the United employee had known that the ISC employee had not received some of his emails, even though the United employee had never received a delivery failure message for those emails. United produced two copies of the email requesting that the vehicle be re-added during discovery – one was a post-accident email that the United employee sent the ISC employee, which contained the original email showing that the other United employee was cc'ed; the other was a copy that only appeared to show that it was sent to the second United employee later. United argued that under Indiana's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the email should be considered sent and received. The court noted that while United presented some evidence that the email was sent, the evidence does not conclusively establish that it was sent as defined by UETA. Further, the court noted that ISC has evidence that even if the email was sent as defined by UETA, it was not received. For example, just because another United employee received the email does not mean that the email "entered an information processing system that the recipient has designated or uses for the purpose of receiving" emails. Therefore, the court found that a question of fact remains whether United sent the email and whether ISC received it. Therefore, those issues of fact preclude a summary judgment on the third-party claims.
  • Court upholds online arbitration agreement: In GC Service Limited Partnership v. Little, 2019 WL 2647690 (S.D. Tex., June 27, 2019), the court upheld an arbitration agreement entered into online even though the defendant denied ever signing the arbitration agreement. The court concluded that a time-stamped checkmark by a box for "Individual Signature" in a password protected application portal is sufficient to establish that the defendant signed the arbitration agreement.
  • Court upholds arbitration agreement that was agreed to electronically via text message: In Starace v. Lexington Law Firm, 2019 WL 2642555 (E.D. Ca. June 27, 2019), the court held that the defendant, a debt collection company, met its burden to prove mutual assent and the enforceability of the engagement agreement because the defendant provided the plaintiff with the full engagement agreement via text message, and the plaintiff replied to the defendant's text message containing the agreement by typing the word "Agree" on the same day. Additionally, the court ruled that sending the engagement agreement via text was sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of the terms of the agreement.
  • Court upholds arbitration agreement entered into electronically: In Smith v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2019 WL 3004160 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2019), the court concluded that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the plaintiff and defendant. The court analyzed how the electronic application process and subsequent onboarding process worked to reach this conclusion. The defendant's system required that each applicant create a unique password that is inaccessible to others and supply a personal email to retrieve a lost password. After login, the applicant was required to complete the employment application screens in succession and the application could not be submitted until all screens had been reviewed, and, with respect to the included arbitration agreement, checking the signature box. If the applicant is offered employment, the same information is used for onboarding, and when a document is completed and submitted electronically, the date and time of submission and the IP address is recorded. The court concluded that the defendant was able to demonstrate that the plaintiff completed both the application and the employment onboarding and thus agreed to the arbitration provision at issue.


  • Court denies standing in ADA website accessibility case: In Tucker v. FirstLight Home Care Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 2996694 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2019), the court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a case claiming a website violated a user's accessibility rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendant was an in-home care franchising entity incorporated in Delaware with its principal office in Ohio. The website at issue was created and maintained in that office in Ohio. The issue arose because some of the content on the defendant's page was incompatible with the plaintiff's screen-reading software. In response to this allegation, the defendant moved to dismiss the claim for want of personal jurisdiction because it has no property in New York and the website, which was accessed from there, was passive and purely informational. Because the plaintiff did not submit any affidavits or supporting evidentiary material – as required by law to counter a motion to dismiss – and only submitted a memorandum in law, which is not evidence, the court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the case.


Online contract formation

  • Court upholds arbitration agreement entered into electronically because party seeking to enforce agreement not required to sign it: In Czerwinski v. Pinnacle Property Management, 2019 WL 2750183 (Wash. Ct. App. July 1, 2019), the court overturned the trial court's decision and enforced the arbitration agreement against the plaintiff. The trial court had denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the agreement lacked mutual assent because the defendant did not countersign and agree to be bound by its terms. The court reversed the trial court's decision and stated that Washington courts have rejected the argument that a written agreement lacked mutual assent if it is not signed by the party seeking to enforce it. The court also ruled that the defendant met its burden to prove the plaintiff electronically signed the agreement because she voluntarily typed in her full name and authenticated it with her social security number. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to prove a defense to enforcement because she failed to present any evidence of fraud. Finally, even though the plaintiff failed to check the "Agreed" checkbox, the defendant has a policy that does not require applicants to check the agree box for the arbitration agreement to be enforceable, and that signing the agreement – which the plaintiff did – was sufficient for a person to agree to the arbitration agreement and proceed with the application process.
  • Court finds that decedent electronically executed waiver and release: In Gordon II v. 28th District Agricultural Association, 2019 WL 3295637 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Div. July 23, 2019), the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the court concluded that under California's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature, and the defendant provided sufficient evidence to authenticate the decedent's electronic signature. The court stated that such authentication establishes the electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person, and the act of the person may be shown in "any manner." The defendant produced evidence showing the existence of a procedure requiring a participant to electronically sign a waiver and release prior to purchasing a ticket and participating in the attraction. Because the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence disputing the procedure or to show that it was not followed by the decedent, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that decedent did not execute the waiver.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions