Does the website need real name authentication now?

Is there a certified platform, but this is not recommended! !

According to the provisions of the Electronic Signature Law and the Contract Law, a valid electronic contract must meet the following conditions:

(a) the original data message, which can reliably keep the content intact and tamper-proof, and meet the original form and file preservation requirements stipulated by law;

(2) Electronic signature, which can identify the signer and the time of signature, prevent tampering, and meet the requirements of valid electronic signature stipulated by law;

(3) The identity has been effectively authenticated by a third party and meets the authentication requirements stipulated by law.

Therefore, before signing a contract, the third-party signing platform must go through strict real-name authentication technology to confirm the true identities of both parties. Only in this way can we provide users with safe and effective electronic signatures and ensure the legitimate rights and interests of both parties.

However, in practice, there is still a third-party signature platform to provide users with signatures without real-name authentication. Once there is a dispute, the user's real name authentication does not match the actual identity, and the signed electronic contract cannot be used as effective judicial evidence.

At present, there are many cases in China Judgment Document Network that are not accepted by the court because the electronic contract has not been authenticated. I hope everyone can sign an electronic contract online and authenticate their real names to avoid the following situations and prevent trampling.

Case 1

CaseNo. (20 19) Jing 0 105 Early Republic of China 17263

Reason: As an authentication method, verification code has low credibility. If it is used as the authentication for signing electronic contracts, the legal effect can not meet the requirements at all, and the court will not recognize it.

In this case, Huang entrusted Zhou with financial management, and Zhou did not return the deposit of the cooperative transaction to Huang. As a result, the two sides signed the "Repayment Agreement" on Dafa APP, and agreed to pay the deposit within a certain period of time. After the agreement was signed, Zhou only paid a part of Huang's deposit, so Huang took Zhou to court.

Huang submitted the instructions issued by Shenzhen Fadada Network Technology Co., Ltd., 201710 14, the holder of mobile phone number189xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx However, both parties signed the contract by sending the verification code 69 1605 to the mobile phone number 189XXXXXXXX and the verification code 793734 to the mobile phone number186xxxxxxxxx.

Huang and Zhou had a dispute over the performance of the contract. Although the contents of the contract have not been tampered with, according to the explanation issued by Shenzhen Developed Network Technology Co., Ltd., the court did not carry out real-name authentication when signing the repayment agreement, which is not enough to be the basis for ascertaining the facts alone.

The contract without real-name authentication is invalid before the court, which once again shows the importance of real-name authentication.

Watch industry tourism

CaseNo. (2020) Wan 16 No.3264

Reason: According to common sense, the identity of real-name authentication must be consistent with the real identity. But the company name at the time of signing the contract was registered after signing the contract, but it passed the certification on the platform?

On August 18, a network technology company in Kunshan signed a mobile communication service agency agreement with a business service studio in Yushan Town, Kunshan City on the electronic platform of "e-signing treasure". It can be seen from this agreement that Guo is the operator of a business service studio in Yushan Town, Kunshan City, and Guo also signed the signature of Party B..

According to the investigation, the registration time of Ermou Business Service Studio in Yushan Town, Kunshan City was August 28th, 20 18, and the mobile communication service agency agreement it signed with a network technology company in Kunshan on August 28th, 20 18 was invalid.

From the above cases, we can see that the third-party electronic contract platform failed to fulfill its due obligations, which led to the invalidity of the signed contract and harmed the interests of both parties.