A business signing with customers in Texas, suppliers in New York and staff in Washington often asks whether it needs fifty different e-signature processes. It does not. The principle is the same in every state; the differences sit in a short list of document types and in New York's separate statute. This page explains which law applies where, so you can check the right list for a given document.
For whom: an operations, HR or legal lead who signs with people in several states. Not for: a final answer on wills, family law, real-estate recording or notarization, which stay state-specific and need local advice. This is our reading of the statutes, not legal advice.
How federal and state law fit together
The federal ESIGN Act (2000) covers transactions in interstate or foreign commerce: a signature or contract may not be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic. Section 102 then lets a state replace that federal rule for its own law, but only in two ways: by enacting the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as approved in 1999, or by adopting technology-neutral alternative procedures that are consistent with ESIGN and, if enacted after ESIGN, refer to it.
The practical result:
- In a state that enacted UETA, the state statute is the rule for that state's law. ESIGN's consumer-consent requirements in section 101(c) still apply; Washington's enactment says so in terms (RCW 1.80.190).
- In New York, which did not enact UETA, the state's Electronic Signatures and Records Act applies. On our reading of section 102, a non-UETA law can depart from the federal rule only through the second route, procedures consistent with ESIGN; where ESRA would be inconsistent, ESIGN prevails for transactions it covers.
State by state: what we read on the source
According to a January 16, 2026 report of the New York City Bar Association, New York is the only state that has not adopted UETA. The table covers the enactments we read on the official legislative sites on October 27, 2026; for other states, the same pattern applies, but read the state's own code before relying on a date or exclusion.
| State | Law | Applies to records from | Notable exclusions or rules |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA), State Technology Law article 3 | Enacted in 2000, per the City Bar report | § 304: an e-signature has the same validity and effect as a handwritten one unless another law says otherwise. § 307 excludes wills, trusts, powers of attorney and certain negotiable and title instruments, with carve-outs |
| California | UETA, Civil Code § 1633.1 and following | — | California's own list of excluded transactions |
| Florida | Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, Fla. Stat. § 668.50 (ch. 2000-164, amended through 2025) | July 1, 2000 | Wills, codicils and testamentary trusts; most of the UCC except sales and leases; judicial procedure |
| Washington | Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, chapter 1.80 RCW (2020 c 57) | Records or signatures created, generated, sent, communicated, received or stored on or after June 11, 2020 | Wills, codicils and testamentary trusts; ESIGN superseded except § 101(c) consumer consent; a notarization may be completed by the officer's electronic signature with the required information (RCW 1.80.100) |
| Other states | Their UETA enactment | Date set by each enactment | Each state's own exclusions and amendments |
Washington is a useful reminder that adoption dates differ: its UETA applies to an electronic record or signature created, generated, sent, communicated, received or stored on or after June 11, 2020 (RCW 1.80.030). An older record can still fall inside that window when it is sent or stored later, so date the event you are relying on, not only the document.
What stays the same everywhere
The definition does not change across these statutes. ESIGN, the UETA model and the Florida and Washington enactments all define an electronic signature as an electronic sound, symbol or process adopted with the intent to sign. Nor does the basic limit: no one is required to agree to sign electronically, and UETA applies only between parties that agreed to transact by electronic means, which can be shown by conduct.
Our position
Write one process to the strictest common rule, then check exclusions per state. In practice that means:
- A clear signing action and a retained, reproducible final record, which every statute above requires in substance.
- The ESIGN consumer-consent step whenever a law requires you to give a consumer something in writing; it applies in UETA states and in New York alike. See our consent template.
- A check of the document type against the state's exclusions before sending: the creation and execution of wills, codicils and testamentary trusts under UETA enactments; in New York, the broader ESRA list (wills, trusts, powers of attorney and certain negotiable and title instruments, with its carve-outs); and anything a court or recorder must accept. Some states have separate statutes for particular electronic estate documents, so check the state's own code for those.
Counter-case: estate planning, family law, real-property recording and notarization are where state law genuinely differs; use the state's own process. For the federal list of excluded documents and what decides a dispute, see are electronic signatures legally binding.
Traceable evidence
Sources for this decision
- officialElectronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce ActUnited States Congress · checked Aug 5, 2026 · supports: Federal rules for electronic records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce, including consumer-disclosure requirements and statutory exclusions; not a conclusion that every document or workflow is eligible.Open source ↗
- officialESIGN Act sections 101(b), 102 and 106: no duty to accept, exemption to preemption, definitionsU.S. Congress · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: ESIGN section 101(b) (no person is required to agree to use or accept electronic records or signatures), section 102 (a state law may modify, limit or supersede section 101 only by enacting UETA as approved in 1999 or by technology-neutral alternative procedures that refer to ESIGN) and section 106 definitions, including an electronic signature as an electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted with the intent to sign; it does not decide whether a given signature was adopted with intent.Open source ↗
- standardsUniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999) with official commentsUniform Law Commission · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999) text and official comments: section 2(8) defines an electronic signature by intent, the comments state that no specific technology is required and that including one's name in an e-mail may suffice when the intent to sign is present, section 5(b) limits the act to parties that agreed to transact electronically, judged from context and conduct, and section 9 attributes a signature to a person whose act it was, including a typed name; it is a model act, not the law of any state until enacted.Open source ↗
- standardsModernizing New York electronic signatures: ESRA and UETA (committee report, January 16, 2026)New York City Bar Association · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: A bar association committee report stating that New York is the only state that has not adopted UETA and relies on ESRA, enacted in 2000; it is a professional report, not a statute, and does not change New York law.Open source ↗
- officialNew York State Technology Law § 304, use of electronic signatures (ESRA)New York State Senate · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: New York's Electronic Signatures and Records Act rule that, unless another law provides otherwise, an electronic signature may be used in lieu of a handwritten one with the same validity and effect; it does not decide whether a particular signer, document or process meets the statute or the State's implementing rules.Open source ↗
- officialNew York State Technology Law § 307, documents excluded from ESRANew York State Senate · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: The documents New York's ESRA does not cover, such as wills, trusts, powers of attorney and certain negotiable or title instruments, with the listed carve-outs and effective dates; it does not settle how another state's law treats the same document.Open source ↗
- officialCalifornia Uniform Electronic Transactions ActCalifornia Legislative Information · checked Aug 5, 2026 · supports: California's enacted electronic-transactions provisions and exclusions; it supports state-specific legal context, not universal document eligibility or enforceability.Open source ↗
- officialChapter 1.80 RCW, Uniform Electronic Transactions ActWashington State Legislature · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: Washington's enactment of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act in chapter 1.80 RCW (2020 c 57), applying to electronic records and signatures created, generated, sent, communicated, received or stored on or after June 11, 2020 (RCW 1.80.030), with the UETA exclusions such as wills, codicils and testamentary trusts, legal recognition of electronic signatures, notarization by electronic signature of the authorized officer, and RCW 1.80.190 stating that the chapter supersedes ESIGN except its consumer-disclosure section 101(c); it does not decide any particular transaction.Open source ↗
- officialFlorida Statutes § 668.50, Uniform Electronic Transaction ActFlorida Legislature · checked Oct 27, 2026 · supports: Florida Statutes section 668.50, the Florida Uniform Electronic Transaction Act enacted by chapter 2000-164 and amended through 2025, applying to records created on or after July 1, 2000, defining an electronic signature by intent and excluding wills, codicils and testamentary trusts, most of the UCC and judicial procedure; it does not settle another state's law.Open source ↗