On the enrollment for eStatements, we have a box that states "I have read the eStatement Disclosure and Agreement". Before the option to click on the box "I Agree" becomes available, the users must click on the online Agreement and Disclosure. The user must confirm that they read the PDF disclosure before they are able to enroll in E-statements by selecting the "I Agree" box. Is this sufficient enough for the consent piece or do they need to enter a code from the Disclosure and Agreement and send back the valid code?
Is there a section in ESign that I can refer to?
Thank you!

I have seen a lot of "scroll down" or click here activations of consent. I don't think that is a problem.

Just make sure that any other disclsoures, statements etc are then PDF as well. Apparently some of us use a PDF for the consent and then send some other file type for our disclosures... technically this is not E-SIGN since they have to consent and prove they can read the file of whatever file format you will provide your actual disclosures.

Cheers!

The user must confirm that they read the PDF disclosure before they are able to enroll in E-statements by selecting the "I Agree" box.

If they can click on "I agree" without you ever being able to determine that they opened the PDF document, then you do not have demonstrable consent.

Will the e-statements be pdf documents? Are you pushing the e-statements or does the depositor pull them? Does email play a role in your delivery system?

I apologize for reviving this old thread..does it make a difference whether the statement delivery is "push" or "pull"?

If the user can simply access the web-site to get their statements each month do they need to ge an email notice that the new checking account periodic statement is avaialble?

As long as you get demonstrable consent, it doesn't matter how your system works--but you have to stick with whatever method you and your customer have agreed. At one time the Fed required the use of ordinary email as part of any e-delivery system for Reg. E and DD disclosures, but those requirements were eliminated many years ago.

To add a wrinkle-I listened to a speaker state in a webinar ( not BOL ) that the customers could satisfy the requirement to DEMONSTRATE they can retrieve and retain the documents at the CSR desk. I do not believe this was correct as if I demonstrate consent at a CSR desk I am demonstrating ability to receive on the bank's network. We have read a John Burnett thread 1796611 that differentiates between "demonstrating on the customers own device" and a device on the Bank 's network. We interpret this to mean that if The customer took his own device into a branch, the CSR could assist the customer on the customer's own device, which is surely different than assisting the customers on a bank device.

We're not missing anything relating to this point, correct? (Planning to ask for our money back from the webinar)

Hope all are well.

Demonstrating on the bank's computer shows that the person understands the instructions as stated by the CSR, so in that sense they are demonstrating that they personally are capable, but they have not demonstrated that they have the equipment to do so once they leave the bank.

E-Sign makes me crazy.

It shouldn't. It's simpler than most things we do...just different.

Remember: when ESIGN was being written, consumer activists pushed hard for 100% confirmed receipt for each electronic document that is e-delivered. That would have been the kiss of death for ESIGN. Just try to imagine getting 100% of all e-delivery customers to respond every time an e-statement is rendered! Congress wisely listened to business people who argued in favor of a one-time-only confirmed receipt--the ESIGN test drive.

It is not E-Sign itself that makes me crazy, I understand the requirements. What makes me crazy is the lax adherence by vendors who convince banks their system is fine, and varying expectations of regulators - who are not looking at the contractual issues in any event (and then bank management who says "regulator said this was fine" while also missing point that signatures may not be legally valid, the true risk.)

vendors - check
regulators - check
management - check

I agree 100%. Of all the players, I blame the regulators most. It's their job to enforce the law and preach risk management. We should not be 13 years into ESIGN and still see the kinds of issues that show up here for discussion regularly. It wasn't even that bad for Reg. Z.

Hello, We have someone in the Bank who is proposing making a computer available in each branch that would not be connected to the Bank's network. The computer would not have access to Bank systems but would just be connected to the internet. Customers could use it to log on to internet banking and presumably could sign up for e-Statements. They would have access to the device during bank hours.
The thinking/hoping is that this would pass e-sign muster as the customer is demonstrating their ability intellectually to receive the statements and is demonstrating that they have access to equipment to receive e-Statements.

They would have access to the computer during regular branch hours.

I am still not comfortable with this because they are demonstrating their ability to receive and retain on a bank device, not their own. However, I am happy to be overturned!

ALso, in a sense the customer would not control access because hours of access to the device would be limited to the bank's hours.

Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?

I don't claim to be an E-sign expert but IMO the person proposing that this would meet E-sign requirements hasn't read the regulation, or if they did they have no idea what they read.

As you state the consumer is not demonstrating they have the ability to accept and store the electronic disclosures/statements on their equipment. Their home equipment may not meet the minimum hardware and software requirements outlined in the consent form. The only way to demonstrate that is them receiving the electronic information through their equipment and confirming their ability to access and store the documents using that equipment.

We've discussed this idea many times and it's always a loser for the reasons Dan outlines. The bank is not a disinterested third party that simply provides a free public service (like the library, for example.)