copyright contract-law
authentication of electronically signed documents
<p>Documents can be signed using electronic signatures. Key factor here is authentication of both parties, signing the document.</p>

<p>Companies, such as <a href="https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/sign.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adobe Sign</a>, offer knowledge-based, social and phone verification of ID and lastly using digital certificate. </p>

<p>Knowledge-based authentication is only possible in US and therefore useless in international business. Having a digital certificate seems unlikely in the small business owners and is "killing" business. Therefore, social and phone verification seem to be the fastest and most business friendly option.</p>

<p><strong>Does social and phone verification stand a chance at the court of law?</strong></p>

<p>I can see many potential exploits. In the case of phone verification, signer of the document may buy a fake SIM card and try to prove that he/she didn't agree to the the terms of contract, because the phone number does not belong to him. In the case of social verification -> the signer of the document may create a fake social account. So does these two authentication offer any reliability? Can they successfully be used on the court?</p>

<p>To put things into practical terms. 2 parties who never met and do not know each other want to make a copyright licence agreement. Client sends the contract to the copyright owner, who signs it using social or phone authentication. Is such a contract of any value? What can be done if the copyright owner fakes its social or phone ID and later files a copyright lawsuit? </p>

<p>See <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/25263/how-can-one-prove-that-a-contract-was-signed-by-force/25269#25269">my answer to the related question ‘How can one prove that a contract was signed by force?’</a> The short answer is <em>yes</em>, subject to any jurisdiction-specific laws that require particular contracts to be executed in a particular form. A person relying on a contract in court bears the burden of proving its existence on the balance of probabilities. While one can never rule out the possibility of a sophisticated fraud, often the circumstances surrounding a contract will make it inherently plausible or implausible that the contract is genuine. Further, a person who gives false evidence about the existence or non-existence of a contract risks a conviction for perjury, fraud or forgery. For these reasons, contractual disputes are usually about the meaning and effect, rather than the existence, of a contract.</p>
