Problems arising with electronic signatures.
A contract signed electronically is a private document and, like their paper counterparts (let us not forget this), may be subject to disputes.
In case of conflict, the signer can say it was not he or she who signed the document, or that the signed content was not that presented. In this situation, if we have a simple or advanced electronic signature, the burden of proof falls on the company, which must show that the document presented is genuine and that it really was that person who signed it.
If, by contrast, a qualified electronic signature has not been used, the company will only have to prove that it has followed the stipulated process for obtaining this signature (that it is based on a qualified certificate, has been generated by a secure signature creation device, etc.) and, if the indicated procedure has been followed, it will be the user who will have to demonstrate any circumstance that might impede relating the signed document to him or her.
However, the qualified electronic signature is difficult to obtain and use (the user needs to apply for it, appear in person in social security office or police station, obtain a certificate, install it on a computer, always use the same computer to be able to sign, etc .) and citizens refuse to obtain it and make use of it.
In contrast, the other two types of simple and advanced signatures are much easier to use and implement, with the result that citizens and businesses are making extensive use of them. Furthermore, its evidential risk is addressed by incorporating mechanisms of authentication or user authentication, so that a court case can be won in the event of litigation.
These authentication procedures consist of verifying the accuracy of the data captured at the time of signing such as the veracity of the mobile number and whether it belongs to the user, the email, the profile on social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter, the image or voice of the person signing, etc.