Remote Notarization for Interstate Commerce

Summary#

This bill lets notaries perform electronic notarizations and remote notarizations (where the signer is not in the same room) when the notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. It sets basic minimum rules for how those notarizations must be done. It also requires Federal courts and other States to accept such notarizations in many cases.

• Main change: Authorizes electronic and remote notarizations that affect interstate commerce and sets minimum standards for how they must be done (identity checks, recording, and attachment of the notary’s signature to the record).
• Cross‑jurisdiction recognition: Federal courts must accept notarizations valid under the notary’s State or this law. States must accept notarizations from other States when the notarization relates to a public act/record or affects interstate commerce.
• Identity and recording rules: Remote notarizations must use live audio‑visual communication, use specified identity checks (personal knowledge, two‑factor verification, or a credible witness), and create an audio‑visual recording that the notary must keep for several years.
• State authority preserved: States can keep licensing, discipline, and additional rules. States may also adopt certain uniform notary laws or set other procedures if they meet limits set in the bill.
• Non‑invalidating clause: Missing one of the bill’s requirements does not by itself invalidate a notarization, and people can still challenge notarized records under other laws (fraud, incapacity, forgery, etc.).

What it means for you#

• Notaries / Notarial officers

  • May perform electronic and remote notarizations that affect interstate commerce, unless their State law bars it or imposes qualifications they do not meet.
  • Must attach or link their electronic signature to the electronic record and bind it so later changes are evident.
  • For remote notarizations they must use live audio‑visual technology, verify identity by one of the listed methods, make an audio‑visual recording of the act, and keep that recording for the required period.
  • Could be barred from doing remote electronic notarizations if their State requires a special commission, endorsement, or has disciplined the notary.

• People getting documents notarized (including remote signers)

  • May be able to be notarized remotely using live video and identity checks if the notarization affects interstate commerce or ties to a public act/record of the notary’s State.
  • If you are in another country or outside any State, the bill allows such notarizations only if the record concerns a U.S. court, government entity, U.S. property, or a transaction tied substantially to the U.S., and if your local law does not forbid it.

• Businesses and banks

  • May receive notarized electronic records or remotely notarized documents from out‑of‑state notaries and must treat them as valid under the recognizing State’s law in the same way as in‑state notarizations (subject to challenges under other law).

• Federal and State courts

  • Federal courts must accept notarizations valid under the notary’s State or this Act.
  • State courts must accept out‑of‑state notarizations in the situations described (public act/record or interstate commerce).

• State regulators

  • Keep power to license, discipline, set standards of care, require special commissions, or prohibit notaries from doing certain notarizations.
  • May adopt alternative or additional procedures in some cases, but those cannot give legal effect to a specific technology.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on an overall cost estimate is provided in the bill materials.

Possible costs or financial effects that could follow from the bill (inferred from bill text):

• Notaries may face costs for audio‑visual recording equipment, secure storage, and identity‑verification services.
• States may incur costs to update licensing, oversight, or archives if they require submission or custody of recordings.
• Businesses that accept notarized electronic records may face costs to adapt systems to validate electronic signatures and store records.
• There may be legal and administrative costs from enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, or defenses against challenges to notarizations.
• The bill sets retention periods for recordings (at least 5 years if State law specifies less; otherwise 10 years), which implies long‑term storage costs.

Proponents' View#

The bill text suggests these reasons someone might support it:

• The bill appears intended to allow modern electronic and remote notarizations in transactions that cross State lines or affect interstate commerce.
• It could be seen as creating consistent, minimum national standards for identity verification, record integrity, and recording retention for remote notarizations.
• Requiring Federal courts and most States to recognize out‑of‑state notarizations where the bill applies may reduce disputes about cross‑border notarization validity.
• Preserving State licensing and discipline lets States continue to protect consumers and enforce notarial misconduct rules.

Opponents' View#

Based on the bill’s design and what it does not specify, reasonable concerns include:

• The bill does not estimate costs or say who pays for technology, identity‑verification services, or long‑term recording storage. This could create burdens for individual notaries or small offices.
• The technical standards are general (e.g., “communication technology,” “bound to the electronic record”) and do not give detailed technical specs, leaving uncertainty about what systems meet the rules.
• Requiring retention of audio‑visual recordings raises privacy and data‑security concerns; the bill does not detail protections or breach rules.
• The provision that failure to meet the bill’s requirements does not invalidate a notarization may reduce the incentive to strictly follow the standards and leaves open litigation over disputed notarizations.
• It is unclear how the law interacts with foreign jurisdictions’ laws when a remotely located signer is outside U.S. jurisdiction, beyond the limited conditions the bill lists.