Digital Transformation and Paperless Transactions News and Trends - July/August 2026

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 from paper to fully electronic processes. 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.

Please see our Blockchain and Digital Assets News and Trends publication for updates on blockchain, digital assets, stablecoins, market structure, virtual currency, and other token-related information.

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

INSIGHT

President Trump issues Executive Order to promote access to mortgage credit and advance digital mortgage modernization

By: Jason Kelly

On March 13, 2026, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14393, “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit.” The EO sets forth policy goals of expanding access to mortgages for Americans seeking to purchase homes, reducing the regulatory burden on small banks to encourage their participation in mortgage activities, and modernizing federal home mortgage programs. Among other things, the EO directs ten federal agencies and departments responsible for conducting and overseeing home mortgage lending and related activities to take various actions designed to advance these policy goals. Read more here. 

REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

FEDERAL

White House

President Trump issues EO on advanced artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and security. On June 2, 2026, President Trump signed EO 14409, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The EO sets forth policy goals related to accelerating AI development while maintaining national security safeguards, and directs federal agencies to take actions to advance these objectives, including establishing classified benchmarking processes for frontier AI models and strengthening cyber defenses.

White House to review SEC electronic delivery rule. On June 23, 2026, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reportedly submitted its proposed electronic delivery rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. Default digital delivery of shareholder documents is a regulatory objective for SEC Chair Paul Atkins, reflecting the agency's broader effort to modernize investor communications and reduce reliance on paper-based delivery methods. The White House review period typically lasts up to 90 days.

Congress

House passes IRS technology bills. On April 27, 2026, the US House of Representatives passed two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) technology bills, the BARCODE Efficiency Act (HR 6956) and the Taxpayer Experience Improvement Act (HR 7971). The BARCODE Efficiency Act directs the IRS to use barcode technology on correspondence to streamline processing and reduce errors. The Taxpayer Experience Improvement Act aims to modernize taxpayer-facing technology and improve the overall taxpayer experience with the agency.

USCIS

USCIS tightens signature enforcement for immigration filings. A new US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interim final rule took effect on July 10, 2026, codifying the agency's authority to reject or deny immigration benefit requests that contain invalid ink or electronic signatures – even after a filing has been accepted for processing. If USCIS denies a request on signature grounds, it may retain the associated filing fee and consider the application fully adjudicated. The US Department of Homeland Security stated the rule was prompted by increasing instances of questionable or fraudulent signatures and inconsistent enforcement of existing policy. Applicants, petitioners, and employers are encouraged to review their signature procedures carefully, as the rule narrows the margin of error for both paper and electronic filings.

SEC/FINRA

SEC and FINRA clarify electronic signature and filing requirements under Rule 17a-5. The SEC published guidance on amendments to Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 to modernize signature and filing requirements for broker-dealer financial reports, with amendments effective for reports filed on or after January 1, 2026. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued an Information Notice on November 14, 2025, reminding firms that all Rule 17a-5 filings must now be submitted electronically through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) database and that paper filings are no longer permitted. The amendments expressly permit electronic signatures on annual audits and Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (FOCUS) Reports, provided applicable regulatory conditions are met.

HHS

HHS adopts standards for healthcare claims attachments and electronic signatures. On March 24, 2026, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published an Administrative Simplification adopting standards for healthcare claims attachment transactions and electronic signatures. The rule establishes electronic standards for the submission of additional documentation to support healthcare claims, prior authorization requests, and related transactions – advancing the transition from paper-based to electronic healthcare administrative processes. The compliance date for the new standards is May 26, 2028.

STATE

Electronic filing

Virginia updates electronic filing procedures for land records. Virginia enacted SB 316 on April 8, 2026. The law does not require electronic filing of land records, and paper filings may continue. However, a circuit court clerk who offers electronic filing must follow specified procedures, including entering into electronic filing agreements, maintaining a disaster recovery plan for electronic land records, and establishing a free property alert system for owners. The law also adds requirements for electronic notarizations, including identity verification, recordkeeping, retention of any required audio-video recording, five-year retention of electronic notarization records, and safeguards for electronic signatures, seals, and records. Most of the law took effect July 1, 2026, while the new notary training requirements and certain electronic filing and notary application provisions take effect July 1, 2027.

Utah allows counties to accept and record digitally authenticated records. Utah enacted HB 319 on March 19, 2026. The law does not require counties to accept digitally authenticated records. However, counties that choose to accept such records must first obtain approval from the State Archives, maintain procedures for both digitally authenticated records and traditionally notarized documents, give public notice of the types of digital authentication they accept, follow record retention requirements, and keep audit trails. The law also requires the State Archives, with technical input from the Division of Technology Services, to set standards for digital authentication systems, including security, identity verification, tamper-evidence, preservation, retention, transfer, and public access. The law took effect May 6, 2026.

Real estate fraud

Alabama enacts law to protect against title fraud. Alabama enacted SB 292, the Alabama Property Protection Act, on April 15, 2026. The Act makes the fraudulent sale of residential real property a Class D felony and allows for expungement of fraudulent conveyance documents. It also requires settlement agents to verify the identity of a seller prior to closing and to maintain identification documentation for five years. Notably, the Act modifies the remote notarization law of the state to require the notary to verify that the principal is not under duress or otherwise incompetent and prohibits remote notarization when the principal is located outside of the US.

Maryland authorizes task force to study deed fraud. On May 12, 2026, Governor Wes Moore approved HB 0130, which establishes a task force to 1) study incidents of deed fraud in Maryland, 2) study how deed fraud is combatted in other states and 3) develop recommendations for deed fraud detection tools. The task force must report its findings on or before July 1, 2028.

Rhode Island criminalizes title fraud. On June 10, 2026, Governor Dan McKee signed HB 7551, establishing the felony criminal offense of real estate title fraud and allowing municipalities to refuse to record “suspicious documents” from persons who are not “trusted submitters.” Suspicious documents include any document submitted for recordation in which the name or commission information of a notarial officer does not match official records. Trusted submitters are title insurers, title companies and title and escrow agents, attorneys licensed in the state, and financial institutions. Persons found guilty of title fraud are subject to imprisonment for not more than 20 years and a fine of not more than $100,000, or both, and an order of restitution for the victim.

Virginia modifies state notarization, filing, and recordation laws to address deed fraud. On April 8, 2026, Virginia enacted SB 316. The law amends Virginia state law to remove personal knowledge as a method of identity verification by notaries public and adds a course of instruction for new and renewing notaries on the topic of real estate fraud, including training on recognizing such fraud. The course must be developed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth by January 1, 2027, with an effective date of July 1, 2027. SB 316 also requires land records clerks to establish a property alert notification system for owners of real property within the court clerk’s jurisdiction by July 1, 2027. The system must send notifications at no cost to property owners when documents affecting their property are filed with the clerk’s office. Additionally, settlement agents responsible for recording deeds or other documents related to land records are required after July 1, 2026 to obtain satisfactory evidence of identity of a seller of real property prior to settlement.

Remote notarization

Utah updates notary and remote notarization rules. Utah enacted SB 139 on March 17, 2026. The law updates identity-proofing rules for in-person and remote notarizations. For remote notarizations, the notary must communicate with the signer by sight and sound, receive a clear image of the signer’s identification, and use secondary identity authentication, such as knowledge-based questions or biometric analysis. SB 139 also adds journal requirements for notaries who receive a commission or new commission on or after May 6, 2026, including 1) detailed entries for each notarial act and 2) secure electronic journals and recordings for remote notarizations. Journals and remote notarization recordings generally must be kept for ten years, and notaries must protect them from unauthorized access or use. The law also limits inspection of journal entries and remote notarization recordings; protects biometric and identification images from disclosure (except in limited circumstances); and creates a misdemeanor for unauthorized interference with notary signatures, seals, journals, recordings, or related technology. The law took effect May 6, 2026.

Washington modifies remote online notarization law to permit remote ink notarization. Effective January 1, 2027, Washington HB 2158 permits state notaries to remotely notarize tangible records using communication technology, provided that the principal 1) signs the tangible record during a recorded communication session with the notary and 2) sends the signed tangible record to the notary no later than three days after such session for notarization. The bill was signed by Governor Bob Ferguson on March 11, 2026.

eSignatures

New Hampshire approves DMV electronic signature law. New Hampshire enacted SB 469 on May 8, 2026. The law allows the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) director to decide, by rule, which DMV records, documents, applications, and forms may be signed electronically. Once the director authorizes electronic signatures for a form or document, the DMV must accept them. The law also removes notarization requirements for supporting documents used to transfer ownership of a vehicle to an insurer after payment of damages and allows those documents to be signed electronically and printed on paper. The law took effect July 7, 2026.

Washington approves DMV electronic signature law. Washington enacted HB 2604 on March 18, 2026, to be effective June 11, 2026. The law removes notarization requirements for total loss title transfer documents and allows such documents to be signed electronically and printed for delivery to the department.

Florida requires processes for electronic signatures on odometer disclosures. Florida enacted HB 961, effective July 1, 2026, which requires insurance companies to implement control processes and procedures regarding the use of electronic signatures on motor vehicle odometer disclosures. Such procedures must ensure adequate identity verification, preservation, disposition, integrity, security, confidentiality, and auditability of the electronic signature.

Hawaii authorizes electronic signatures on total loss title transfers. Hawaii enacted SB 2053 on June 5, 2026. Once the law becomes effective on July 1, 2027, supporting documents used to transfer ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurance company after payment of damages from the result of a total loss insurance settlement may be signed electronically. However, insurance companies are required to indemnify and hold harmless the state Director of Finance for any claims resulting from the issuance of motor vehicle titles utilizing documents signed electronically without a notary.

California enables Social Services to use electronic signatures. On June 29, 2026, California enacted AB 152 which, among other things, authorizes the State Department of Social Services to use electronic signatures, as defined in the state Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA).

eRecords

Oklahoma exempts certain electronic records from notarization. In HB 3323, Oklahoma exempted from state motor vehicle law notarization requirements all records submitted in electronic format to Service Oklahoma – the state online portal for motor vehicle titling and registration services. The bill was enacted on May 11, 2026, and becomes effective November 1, 2026.

Artificial intelligence

States continue to address AI through laws, pending bills, and policy measures. Recent state activity addresses automated decision making, frontier model safety, AI-generated content, child safety, employment, consumer protection, government use of AI, and workforce impacts. Notable developments include the following:

• Texas enacts broad AI governance law. HB 149, the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act, took effect on January 1, 2026. The law applies to certain developers, deployers, and government entities that do business in Texas, offer products or services used by Texas residents, or develop or deploy AI systems in the state. It prohibits specified harmful AI uses, including certain manipulative uses, unlawful discrimination, government social scoring, and creation of child sexual abuse material or explicit deepfakes involving minors. It also creates a regulatory sandbox, an AI Council, and attorney-general enforcement with civil penalties. Read more here.
  
  
• Colorado repeals and replaces its AI Act. On May 14, 2026, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB 26-189 into law, repealing the 2024 Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (CAIA) – originally enacted as Senate Bill 205 – before it took effect and replacing it with the narrower Automated Decision-Making Technology Act (ADMTA). While the CAIA regulated all "high-risk" AI systems with broad obligations around algorithmic discrimination, the ADMTA applies only to automated decision-making technologies that materially influence "consequential decisions" and shifts the regulatory focus to transparency and consumer disclosure. The repeal followed sustained industry opposition and federal pressure, including an X.AI lawsuit and a December 2025 Executive Order directing a federal AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws. The ADMTA takes effect January 1, 2027, pending completion of the Colorado attorney general's rulemaking process. Read more here.
  
  
• Connecticut enacts comprehensive AI law. Connecticut enacted Substitute SB 5, Public Act 26-15, on May 27, 2026. The law covers several AI topics, including companion chatbot safeguards, frontier model whistleblower protections, AI use in employment decisions, generative AI provenance, AI subscription disclosures, and planning for an AI regulatory sandbox. Among other requirements, operators of AI companions must make clear disclosures when users are interacting with AI, implement safeguards for self-harm and minor users, and avoid misleading users into thinking the companion is human. The law has staggered effective dates beginning in October 2026. Read more here.
  
  
• New York advances AI-generated news disclosure bill. On June 8, 2026, the New York Legislature passed SB 8451-B/AB 8962-B, the New York Fundamental AI Requirements in News Act. The bill would require news organizations operating in New York to clearly disclose when news content, articles, or media are substantially or wholly AI-generated. The bill has passed both legislative chambers and is awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature.
  
  
• California launches AI workforce monitoring tool. On June 25, 2026, California launched the California AI-Unemployment Tracker as part of Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2023 AI workforce EO. The tool is designed to monitor potential AI-related job displacement and identify where worker support, retraining, and other interventions may be needed. According to the announcement, initial data shows no evidence of rising unemployment from AI.

• Illinois adopts frontier AI safety law. Illinois enacted SB 315, the AI Safety Measures Act, on July 6, 2026. The law applies to developers of frontier AI models and imposes transparency, safety, incident-reporting, whistleblower, and compliance obligations. Large frontier developers must publish and update safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents, maintain internal reporting channels, and undergo annual independent third-party audits. Illinois is the third state – after California and New York – to pass a frontier model law, but the only one of the three to include a third-party audit provision. The AI Safety Measures Act takes effect January 1, 2027, with key safety-framework and audit obligations beginning January 1, 2028. Read more here.

Estates and trusts; eWills

New York permits electronic wills. Governor Hochul signed AB 9497 on February 13, 2026, enabling the execution of electronic wills in the state, including attestation, revocation, filing, and storage. The law amends the state Electronic Signatures and Records Act to permit electronic signatures and execution processes for wills in the state. The chief administrator of the courts is required to adopt rules necessary and appropriate for electronic wills. The law takes effect in two years.

Kentucky enacts electronic wills law. On April 13, 2026, Kentucky enacted SB 50, becoming the eleventh state to adopt the Uniform Electronic Wills Act and the eighth state to adopt the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act. The law enables individuals in Kentucky to create, execute, and store wills and other estate planning documents entirely in electronic form, reflecting a growing national trend toward digital solutions in estate planning.

Minnesota enacts electronic estate planning. Governor Walz signed SF 3602 on April 14, 2026. Minnesota became the ninth state to adopt the Uniform Electronic Estate Planning Documents Act, which supplements the state’s 2025 adoption of the Uniform Electronic Wills Act. Beginning on August 1, 2026, Missouri will be able to offer comprehensive digital estate planning, including the ability to create, execute, and store estate planning documents entirely in electronic form.

eTitles

Louisiana adopts electronic vehicle titling. On May 29, 2026, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed SB 72, which provides for electronic motor vehicle titles and registration in the state. The law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to implement a system to enable the ability to transact, process, record, and transmit certificates of title through a fully electronic process for business entities and service providers applying for automotive titles and registrations on behalf of themselves and their customers. The law 1) provides that a certified copy of the Department’s electronic record of a lien shall be admissible in any state court and 2) grants immunity from civil liability to any dealer arising solely from the use of electronic signatures, remote notarization of powers of attorney, or electronic records, provided that the dealer complies with the requirements of the law and any Department rules. The law becomes effective August 1, 2026.

Digital identity

Utah amends digital identity program. On March 4, 2026, Utah passed SB 275, which amended the state’s digital identity program to, among other things, establish a digital identity bill of rights, add a state-endorsed digital identity, establish identity proofing standards, and provide for repeal of the electronic license certificate or identification card upon sunset review. The law became effective May 6, 2026.

UCC

Additional states enact UCC Article 12 on controllable electronic records. The following states join 36 other states and the District of Columbia in adopting the 2022 Amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), including Article 12 governing property rights of intangible digital assets as Controllable Electronic Records (CERs):

• New York adopted A3307A on December 5, 2025.
• Utah adopted HB 474 on March 23, 2026.
• Tennessee enacted SB 1859 on April 24, 2026.
• Alaska enacted SB 252 on July 16, 2026.
• Ohio adopted HB 195 on July 7, 2026.

For more information on CERs under UCC Article 12, see our prior issues from May 2023, July 2023, January 2025, May 2025, June 2025, and August 2025.

 

CASE LAW

FEDERAL

eSignatures

California district court affirms ability of electronic signatures to form contracts. In Rodriguez v. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479 (Jan. 9, 2026), the US District Court for the Southern District of California held that an electronic signature supported the formation of an arbitration agreement concerning a situation where CVS launched its arbitration policy through an online training module. The end of the training program prompted employees to electronically sign and acknowledge that they read the arbitration policy carefully and that they understand they may seek legal counsel, may opt out of the agreement, and that clicking the “Yes” button constitutes a signature. The plaintiff alleged that her supervisor completed her training for her. The court enforced the arbitration agreement, finding that CVS presented sufficient evidence of a valid arbitration agreement through declarations regarding its employee login security policies and records indicating that the plaintiff, not her manager, completed the training.

Michigan district court upholds validity of “click through” electronic agreements. In Wong v. Unifi Aviation, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6554 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2026), the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan addressed a situation where an employee was hired and completed her onboarding process electronically on the spot. She alleged that she was urged to hurry and “click through” the onboarding materials by her employer, that she does not recall signing an arbitration agreement, and that the arbitration agreement would have been “buried among numerous onboarding forms with no meaningful opportunity to review or negotiate its terms.” The court held that an employee’s assertion that they do not recall signing an arbitration agreement or were rushed through electronic onboarding is generally insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding contract formation when the employer produces records and declarations showing assent. The same was true for declarations claiming that an employee did not see the arbitration agreement, or otherwise any references to “click through” agreements.

Arizona district court enforces electronically signed arbitration agreement despite duress allegations. In Lott v. Upgrade Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261510 (D. Ariz. Dec. 18, 2025), the US District Court for the District of Arizona enforced a mutual arbitration agreement electronically signed by the plaintiff. The court found that the electronic signature constituted valid acceptance under Arizona law, that the agreement’s terms were sufficiently definite, and that the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate supplied consideration. The court rejected the plaintiff’s duress argument because she had time to review the documents before signing, was advised she could seek independent counsel, and did not identify any wrongful threat or act by the defendant.

Georgia district court denies arbitration due to insufficient evidence of assent. In Lawrence v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265217 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2025), the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia addressed claims arising from Lawrence’s allegation that he was the victim of identity theft and that his personal information was used to obtain vehicle financing in California. Driveway Finance alleged that Lawrence entered into a retail installment sale contract to finance a used 2020 Chevrolet Corvette and that the contract contained an arbitration provision, but Lawrence denied entering into any agreement with Driveway Finance. The court found that Driveway Finance had not shown, as a matter of law, that Lawrence assented to arbitration because it attached the alleged contract to its pleadings without authenticating the contract through an affidavit or other evidence showing that it came from business records, bore Lawrence’s signature, or otherwise tied the document to him.

Nebraska district court rejects challenge to electronically signed declarations. In Whitten v. Citibank NA, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268114 (D. Neb. Dec. 29, 2025), the US District Court for the District of Nebraska rejected a borrower’s post-order challenge to declarations submitted in support of a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff argued that a Citibank representative’s signatures were forged based on visual differences between signatures appearing on different declarations. The court found the allegation insufficient to establish fraud or misconduct, emphasizing that 1) the plaintiff offered only counsel’s lay comparison of the signatures and 2) the declarant submitted another declaration confirming that she had reviewed and electronically signed the challenged declarations. The court also noted that any dispute over which cardmember agreement controlled would not have changed the arbitration analysis because the relevant agreements contained identical arbitration provisions and indicated that differences in the appearance of electronic signatures, without more, are insufficient to show forgery or invalidate electronically signed declarations.

California district court holds that competent evidence of online assent to arbitration agreement is necessary to enforce arbitration. In Ellis v. Wallet Buddha LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266800 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2025), the US District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration regarding a situation where the plaintiff alleged he continued to receive marketing text messages after requesting to stop receiving the text messages. The defendant contended that the plaintiff agreed to arbitration by clicking a “Submit and Agree” button on a third-party website. The court denied arbitration because the defendant did not present sufficient evidence that the plaintiff electronically assented to an arbitration agreement, finding that the defendant did not adequately authenticate evidence regarding the contents of a third-party website or establish that the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate disputes through the website’s submission process.

Maryland district court rejects arbitration agreement based on insufficient evidence. In Zafari v. KBR Wyle Servs., LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4537 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2026), the US District Court for the District of Maryland denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence showing that the plaintiff had electronically signed an arbitration agreement. The court found that the defendant merely provided the text of the alleged arbitration agreement, a “bare bones” explanation of the defendant’s onboarding process, and proof that the plaintiff acknowledged a “DRP Options Brochure.” The court also found that the defendant did not provide a copy of the arbitration agreement bearing the plaintiff’s signature, did not adequately explain the electronic signature process, nor did it provide a definition of what “Acknowledgment” means as a signature type on Workday.

Eighth Circuit affirms injunction against wet-signature requirement for voter registration applications. In Get Loud Ark. v. Jester, 171 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2026), the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a rule requiring handwritten “wet” signatures on voter registration applications. The challenged rule had prevented an organization from using an online registration tool that allowed applicants to complete forms electronically and sign digitally, but Arkansas officials had previously accepted applications with both wet and digital signatures and did not analyze signature type when determining voter qualifications. On that record, the court held that the plaintiffs were likely to show that rejecting applications solely because they used digital signatures violated the Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision, because the type of signature was not shown to be material to determining voter qualifications or preventing voter-registration fraud.

ESIGN/UETA

Illinois district court holds ESIGN and UETA do not create private damages claims. In Williams v. Wells Fargo Auto, 2026 WL 1214697 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2026), the court dismissed claims asserting violations of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) and Illinois UETA arising from a vehicle-financing transaction in which one electronic signature allegedly was applied across multiple transaction documents. The plaintiff sought damages under ESIGN and UETA, rather than invoking those statutes defensively to establish the validity or enforceability of an electronic signature. The court held that neither statute creates a private right of action for damages: ESIGN generally provides that electronic signatures and records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are electronic, and Illinois UETA similarly validates electronic signatures without creating an independent damages remedy.