15 U.S.C. § 7002

Exemption to preemption

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In generalA State statute, regulation, or other rule of law may modify, limit, or supersede the provisions of section 7001 of this title with respect to State law only if such statute, regulation, or rule of law—(1) constitutes an enactment or adoption of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as approved and recommended for enactment in all the States by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1999, except that any exception to the scope of such Act enacted by a State under section 3(b)(4) of such Act shall be preempted to the extent such exception is inconsistent with this subchapter or subchapter II, or would not be permitted under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of this subsection; or(2)(A) specifies the alternative procedures or requirements for the use or acceptance (or both) of electronic records or electronic signatures to establish the legal effect, validity, or enforceability of contracts or other records, if—(i) such alternative procedures or requirements are consistent with this subchapter and subchapter II; and(ii) such alternative procedures or requirements do not require, or accord greater legal status or effect to, the implementation or application of a specific technology or technical specification for performing the functions of creating, storing, generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating electronic records or electronic signatures; and(B) if enacted or adopted after June 30, 2000, makes specific reference to this chapter.(b) Exceptions for actions by States as market participants

Subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii) shall not apply to the statutes, regulations, or other rules of law governing procurement by any State, or any agency or instrumentality thereof.

Subsection (a) does not permit a State to circumvent this subchapter or subchapter II through the imposition of nonelectronic delivery methods under section 8(b)(2) of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

(Pub. L. 106–229, title I, § 102, June 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 467.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2000, with exceptions relating to record retention and certain loans, see section 107 of Pub. L. 106–229, set out as a note under section 7001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Naldi v. Grunberg, 80 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Naldi v. Grunberg, 80 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “E-SIGN permits states to supersede the federal act by enacting UETA (see 15 USC § 7002 [a]). . In this regard, the legislative memorandum in support of the 2002 amendments to ESRA demonstrates that the bill was motivated by a desire to eliminate possible inconsistencies between…”

People v. McFarlan, 191 Misc. 2d 531 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “( 15 USC § 7002 [a] [1].) A comparison of UETA with ESRA makes it clear that ESRA is not the same as, a clone of, or even similar to UETA.”

Princeton Indus., Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp., 120 F. Supp. 3d 812 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 7002 . But there is no indication that Illinois has undertaken to do so.”

Mizel v. Unified Capital Partners 3 LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “15 U.S.C § 7002(a). -12- authenticate the memorandum.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 7002(a) — 1 case

Mizel v. Unified Capital Partners 3 LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “15 U.S.C § 7002(a). -12- authenticate the memorandum.”

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.