Signed, Sealed, and Dismissed: A Judge’s War on E-Signatures

Electronic signatures are hardly new. Neither is Gov.br, the Brazilian government’s own platform for digitally signing documents. But every once in a while, Brazil reminds us that the 21st century didn’t arrive everywhere at once.

A judge in Rio de Janeiro recently put that theory to the test by dismissing a case because the plaintiff’s power of attorney had been signed electronically. The judge apparently preferred a more traditional form of signature. You know, pen and paper.

However, that result is hard to reconcile with Brazilian law. A November 2025 decision from the Court of Appeals in Rio de Janeiro had already recognized the validity of a power of attorney signed through Gov.br. In other words, this wasn’t exactly new territory.

Then, things got even weirder. The judge’s order dismissing the case referred to “plaintiffs” in the plural, even though there was only one plaintiff. The judge also faulted ‘them’ for failing to provide “legible signatures” when legibility wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether an electronic signature was valid at all.

The decision is even harder to explain in light of a recent ruling from Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The STJ held that electronically signed powers of attorney don’t require ICP-Brasil certification. Other platforms may be used as long as they offer reliable identification and document security.

Wet-ink signatures are increasingly a thing of the past. What matters in Brazil is authenticity and integrity. The person signing must be reliably identified, and the document must remain protected from alteration after it’s signed.