In Brown v. Child Advocates, Inc., No. 14-24-00012-CV, 2023 WL 2261414 (Tex.App. Hou. April 15, 2025), the court addresses a frequent issue in today’s courthouses: when are electronic signatures valid? In this matter, it appears the case did actually proceed to arbitration. Since, the employee submitted a motion to vacate the arbitration award. The employer also moved to compel arbitration.

In any event, the court addressed the validity of the purported signature. The court pointed to the requirements of the Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, codified at Tex. Bus. & Com.C. §322, et seq. The requirements of the TUETA were also addressed in Aerotek v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. 2021). As the Brown court pointed out, to show a valid electronic signature, the entity proposing the signature must show the efficacy of the procedures used to ensure only the named person was capable of making the signature.

Aerotek Requirements

The court found that Child Advocates did not show: 1) that the signature was created by an account that could only have belonged to Ms. Brown, 2) security procedures that would have prevented unauthorized access by users other than Brown, and 3) that all users were required to complete all steps before proceeding on with the signature. But, the employer did produce an arbitration agreement with Brown’s apparent signature. This constituted a scintilla evidence, such that the court could proceed to the next step.

At this stage, however, Brown averred that she:

  • never intended to enter into an arbitration agreement
  • could not confirm the signature as hers
  • did not recall signing such an agreement
  • did not receive such an agreement after it was allegedly signed
  • if she had known about the opt-out step, she would have chosen not agree to the arbitration, at all

In short, Ms. Brown presented essentially the same evidence offered by Salvador Meraz in Solcius, LLC v. Meraz, No. 08-22-00146-CV, 2023 WL 2261414 (Tex.App. El Paso 2022). Neither plaintiff offered any more evidence than essentially, “I do not recall signing the agreement and that is not my signature.” Yet, one case resulted in arbitration, while the other one did not.

One important difference is that in the Brown matter, the employer apparently offered simply no evidence regarding its procedures for electronic signatures. While, in the Meraz case, the proponent of the electronic signature testified that only a person with Mr. Meraz’ email address and IP could have signed the document. And, Mr. Meraz acknowledged receiving electronic copies of the agreement after the work had already been performed. The Meraz court vowed that action as indicating that merit had agreed to conduct his transactions electronically.

See Brown v. Child Advocates here. See the decision in Solcius v. Meraz here.