What state rules ask of a RON platform
Our comparison tables do not list features the vendors advertise. Each row is something a state rule asks of the technology you notarize on, or, in a few marked rows, a question of fit. This page explains each row once, names the rule it rests on, and shows what each state we have read actually says, with the source. The comparisons that use these rows are under RON platforms.
Rules read
Fig. 1| Row in our tables | Rests on |
|---|---|
| Identity proofing: credential analysis + knowledge-based authentication | Identity proofing |
| Audio-video session recorded | Session recording kept for |
| Recording retained for the state's period | Session recording kept for |
| Electronic journal kept by the platform | Electronic journal |
| Tamper-evident technology / digital certificate under the notary's sole control | Digital certificate and e-seal |
| Signer can join from a browser / phone | No state rule: a fit question |
| Supports eClosing / title workflows | No state rule: a fit question |
| Independent notary can bring their own signers | No state rule: a fit question |
| Platform sends notaries signings through its own network | No state rule: a fit question |
| Supports in-person electronic notarization (IPEN) as well as RON | No state rule: a fit question |
| The platform makes your electronic seal for you | No state rule: a fit question |
| Takes an electronic seal image you upload | No state rule: a fit question |
Identity proofing
Many of the rules we read let you identify a signer you know personally, and some accept a credible witness. For a stranger, the rule asks for checks a platform runs: credential analysis of the ID (software that tests whether the document is genuine and unaltered) and identity proofing, usually a knowledge-based quiz drawn from public and proprietary records. Some states count “two methods” and let you pick; others name both. The row is met only when the platform does what your state names.
- credential analysis + KBA
- NEFLWA
- two identity-proofing types
- KSME
- credential analysis + KBA or alternative
- CO
- credential analysis + identity proofing
- MD
- credential analysis + identity proofing (per rule)
- MO
- two identity-proofing methods
- PA
- credential analysis + KBA (third party)
- TX
- two of five methods (incl. credential analysis, KBA)
- VA
- Not found in a primary source
- LA
Where a state sets the quiz itself, the terms run close: Texas, for one, asks for dynamic knowledge-based authentication: at least five questions with five answer choices each, 80% correct, all answered within two minutes, one retake within 24 hours. Tex. Gov't Code § 406.110(b); 1 TAC §§ 87.41(d), 87.70
The checks and each state's quiz terms are set out in identity proofing in RON.
The recording and its period
Two rows rest on one rule. “Audio-video session recorded” asks whether the platform records the whole session; “recording retained for the state's period” asks whether it keeps that recording, or lets you keep it, for as long as your state says. The second is where platforms differ: a vendor may say it stores recordings for a set number of years that is shorter than your state's, or say it is a ceiling rather than a promise. Your state's period:
- 10 years
- COKSMEMDMONEPAFLWA
- 5 years
- TXVA
- Not found in a primary source
- LA
Who may hold the recording differs too: some rules let a third party or repository store it under a contract, provided you keep access. See recording retention by state and the retention date calculator.
Fig. 2The journal
“Electronic journal kept by the platform” is a convenience row, and the rule behind it is about you, not the platform: the journal is yours to keep, and the platform's journal only helps if it records the fields your state asks for and lets you take the entries with you.
- yes
- KSMDPA
- yes (electronic record)
- TXVA
- electronic journal
- CO
- yes, for remote and electronic acts
- ME
- electronic + bound journal
- MO
- electronic record of each act
- NE
- yes (electronic)
- FL
- tangible journal required; electronic optional
- WA
- Not found in a primary source
- LA
Journals are compared in electronic notary journals; each state's entry fields are in journal requirements by state.
Tamper-evident technology
The rules we read ask, in different words, that the finished document show any later change, and several add that your electronic signature and seal stay under your sole control. A few go further and name the certificate: an X.509 digital certificate in Texas and Virginia, a digital certificate in Kansas. The row is met when the platform says how it makes the document tamper-evident and whose certificate signs it.
- tamper-evident
- MDPA
- tamper-evident seal + signature
- CO
- digital certificate required
- KS
- tamper-evident e-signature
- ME
- registered e-signature + e-seal
- MO
- e-signature + seal under sole control
- NE
- tamper-evident technology; seal data in e-signature
- FL
- X.509 PKI digital certificate + electronic seal
- TX
- X.509 digital certificate (trusted root CA)
- VA
- tamper-evident technology
- WA
- Not found in a primary source
- LA
Certificates are compared in notary digital certificate providers, seals in electronic notary seal requirements.
The approved lists
The last rule-backed column in our tables is not a requirement row but a fact: the lists a platform appears on, as state abbreviations. 8 states in our data publish a list, and in each of them the list is where a platform choice starts, whatever the other rows say. Look a state up in the state-approved platform finder, or see every platform against every list in state-approved RON platforms. Where a state keeps no list, the platform is read against the rule alone: Florida's provider self-certifications in RON platforms for Florida notaries, and the rules of Texas, Virginia and Washington in their own comparisons.
The rules side by side
The four platform-facing rules for every state we have read, each cell linked to its source.
Fig. 3Rows about fit, not law
The other 7 rows ask no legal question. They are about whether a platform fits the way you work, and a platform that answers “no” to all of them can still be a lawful choice:
- Signer can join from a browser / phone
- Supports eClosing / title workflows
- Independent notary can bring their own signers
- Platform sends notaries signings through its own network
- Supports in-person electronic notarization (IPEN) as well as RON
- The platform makes your electronic seal for you
- Takes an electronic seal image you upload
How we mark a cell
Each cell in a comparison carries one of three marks, and nothing else: no stars, scores or prices.
- Meets
- The vendor's own published page says so, and we record that page and the date we read it.
- Not stated
- We read the vendor's pages and found nothing on it either way.
- check with the vendor
- What the vendor says is partial or hedged, or we have it without a source: ask the vendor in writing.
We do not test platforms; we read what they publish against what the 12 states' rules ask. Verdicts are editorial: no vendor can buy a verdict position or displace another vendor.
Questions notaries ask
Does a platform that meets every row satisfy my state?
Not on its own. The rows restate what state rules ask of a platform in general terms; your state's own wording, and its approved list if it keeps one, decide. Read your state's rule against the platform before your first session.
Why is a cell marked 'check with the vendor' when the vendor's site mentions the feature?
Because what the vendor publishes is partial or hedged: for example, a recording period stated as an upper limit, or a feature named without saying it applies to your state. Ask the vendor to confirm it in writing.
Do you test the platforms?
No. We read the vendors' own published pages and the states' rules and lists, and date each reading. What we did not test is said on each comparison.
Related
- RON platforms for a solo notary, comparedFor an independent notary: own signers, a journal and recording kept for your state's period, and the state lists each is on.
- RON technology providers on state lists: who sits on the mostOne table of providers against the state lists, dated, each linked to the state's own list.
- Identity proofing in RON: credential analysis and KBAWhat the two checks are, what states require of each, and what the notary still decides.
- RON recording retention by stateHow long each state makes you keep the session recording, who may hold it, and what happens when you leave a platform.
- State-approved RON platform finderPick a state that publishes a list and see the platforms on it, as the state writes them.