California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1633.7 (2026)
Electronic Transactions
✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b)A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c)If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(d)If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014).
Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014). “Plaintiffs’ right to written notice, if they had any at all, comes from the California Vehicle Code.”
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “2809-2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subd. (a) [“A . . . signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.”
Ni v. Slocum, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “” (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subd. (d).) Interpreting identical language in the Utah UETA, that state’s Supreme Court has concluded electronic signatures can be used to endorse candidate nominating petitions.”
Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002). “§ 7001(a)(1); see also Cal. Civ.Code § 1633.7(b) ("A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.”
Gillis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 875 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “3d at 1362 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.7 ); Cloud, 314 F.3d at 295 (citing 15 U.”
Rolando Lemus v. Denny's Inc., 617 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2015). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1633.7(c); see also Rickards v.”
Stewart Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Therefore, the only question is whether Bucher’s name on an email is a valid writing and signature to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. If the email had been sent after January 1, 2000, there would be no question of its sufficiency under the Statute of Frauds because the Uniform…”
Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “) The Clinic claims, without citation to authority, that Ruiz is distinguishable because Ruiz involved an electronic signature and this case involves a handwritten signature. But that is a distinction without a legal difference.”
Bayside Covenant Church v. Superior Court, No. C095727 (Cal. Ct. App. July 27, 2022). “2809-2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subd. (a) [‘A . . . signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form[]’]).”
LaCasse v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc., No. C094406 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2023). “2809-2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subd. (a) [‘A . . . signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form[]’]).”
Perez v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 91 Cal. App. 5th 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “” (Civ. Code, § 1633.7, subd. (b).) And an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person.”
Park v. NMSI, Inc., 96 Cal. App. 5th 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “According to NMSI, Chung’s email of October 23, 2019, which included “his full name, title, address, two phone numbers, email address, and webpage URL,” was all that was needed to satisfy the electronic signature requirement of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) (Civ.”
Cal. Civil Code § 1633.7(b): 1 case
Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002). “§ 7001(a)(1); see also Cal. Civ.Code § 1633.7(b) ("A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.”
Cal. Civil Code § 1633.7(c): 2 cases
Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014). “Plaintiffs’ right to written notice, if they had any at all, comes from the California Vehicle Code.”
Rolando Lemus v. Denny's Inc., 617 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2015). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1633.7(c); see also Rickards v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.