Supreme Court Joint Sessions: Digital Signature and Point-and-Click Unfair Clauses

1. The fact

   According to reports in publications such as «Il Sole 24 Ore», the dispute stems from a plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction raised in litigation between two companies. The contract had been entered into online via a web portal, where the user accepted the general terms and conditions by selecting a checkbox (so-called point-and-click), including a clause derogating from standard territorial jurisdiction. Following the first two instances of judgment, the issue reached the Supreme Court to determine whether such a technical method satisfied the specific written approval requirement demanded by the Civil Code for burdensome clauses. The Joint Sessions were assigned the case to resolve a judicial split regarding the equivalence between a click and a handwritten signature in a digital environment.

2. The relevant laws

   The core of the issue lies in Art. 1341, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which dictates that unfair clauses have no effect unless specifically approved in writing, protecting the party adhering to unilaterally prepared conditions. This rule is complemented by Arts. 20 and 21 of the CAD (Digital Administration Code), which regulate the evidentiary value of electronic documents. Specifically, the law establishes that only the use of an advanced, qualified, or digital electronic signature guarantees signature authorship with the legal effect of a private deed, whereas for other forms of electronic signature, the fulfillment of the written form requirement is left to judicial assessment, creating uncertainty regarding unfair clauses approved via weak systems.

3. What case law says

   Supreme Court case law has historically interpreted the double signature requirement strictly, ruling out that generic or cumulative forms of approval could cure unfairness. With the advent of digital technologies, debate arose on whether the point-and-click mechanism could be considered a sufficient form of negotiable neo-formalism. However, the settled line of authority confirmed by the Joint Sessions clarified that protecting the weaker party requires a certainty of intent that a simple click cannot provide, as such an act is not technically and uniquely attributable to the signer's identity under current technical standards. The principle expressed emphasizes that the written form requirement ad substantiam for unfair clauses admits no digital equivalents lacking guarantees of integrity and immutability.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Revision of digital onboarding processes: a simple checkbox is no longer sufficient; advanced or qualified electronic signature systems must be integrated for unfair clauses.
   2. Defense strategy: for lawyers representing consumers or small businesses, the absence of a digital signature represents an extremely solid ground for a plea of nullity.
   3. Burden of proof: it is essential that corporate IT systems are capable of producing technical evidence compliant with the CAD to withstand challenges regarding signature validity.

References: Art. 1341 c.c.Art. 1342 c.c.Art. 20 D.Lgs. 82/2005Art. 21 D.Lgs. 82/2005Cass. civ. Sez. Unite, Sentenza n. 25840/2024

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 5 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction