The SECURE Notarization Act of 2025 authorizes notaries public to perform electronic notarizations and remote notarizations that occur in or affect interstate commerce and sets baseline federal requirements for how those notarizations must be executed, verified, and recorded. The bill also directs Federal courts and States to recognize notarizations valid under a notarial officer’s State law or under this Act and creates presumptions of genuineness and authority for notarial signatures in judicial and State proceedings.
This matters for institutions that depend on notarized records across State lines—banks, title companies, courts, and technology providers—because it creates a national floor for identity-proofing, record integrity, and retention while leaving room for State regulation of notary commissions, enforcement, and certain State-specific rules. The Act attempts to make remote and electronic notarizations portable in interstate commerce while preserving State supervisory authority over notaries and addressing consumer‑protection concerns such as false advertising by non‑attorneys.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes notaries to notarize electronic records and remotely located individuals for matters that occur in or affect interstate commerce; mandates that a notary’s electronic signature be attached or logically associated with the record and bound so alterations are evident. Requires audiovisual recording of remote notarizations and sets minimum retention rules.
Who It Affects
Notaries public and other state notarial officers, companies relying on notarized documents (financial institutions, title insurers), providers of remote notarization technology, Federal courts, and State notary regulators.
Why It Matters
Creates a uniform federal baseline to reduce uncertainty about cross‑state enforceability of e‑notarizations and remote notarizations while leaving States authority over commissions, discipline, and additional requirements—potentially enabling more interstate digital transactions but producing new compliance and privacy obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a federal floor for electronic and remote notarizations that touch interstate commerce. For electronic notarizations, it requires the notary’s electronic signature and required information be attached or logically associated with the electronic record and bound so any later change is obvious.
For remote notarizations, the notary must have the remotely located signer appear ‘‘personally’’ via synchronous audiovisual communication and must reasonably identify the signer through personal knowledge, two distinct identity‑proofing processes, or a credible witness.
Remote notarizations must be audio‑visually recorded. The notary (or an agent) must create the recording and retain it for a statutory minimum that varies depending on State law: if the notary’s State sets a retention period, the notary must keep the recording for the greater of that State period or five years; if the State sets no retention period, the federal default is ten years.
If a notary dies or is incapacitated, a court‑appointed fiduciary generally must retain those recordings unless State law assigns the duty to another repository.The Act requires Federal courts and States to recognize notarizations as valid if they are valid under the notarial officer’s State law or under this Act, and it makes the notary’s signature and title prima facie evidence of genuineness and, in some cases, conclusive proof of authority. At the same time, the Act preserves States’ ability to regulate notaries: States can adopt the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA) or enact alternative procedures consistent with the Act; they can establish special commissions, deny or revoke commissions, impose disciplinary sanctions, and prohibit notaries from performing e‑ or remote notarizations in certain circumstances.Two important legal boundaries: (1) the Act does not force notaries to offer electronic or remote services, and (2) failure to meet a federal requirement does not by itself invalidate a notarization—aggrieved parties can still pursue remedies under State or Federal law for fraud, forgery, incapacity, or other defects.
The bill also targets false or deceptive advertising by non‑attorneys, explicitly banning notaries (except licensed attorneys) from using ‘‘notario/notario publico’’ or advertising immigration or legal‑representation services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act requires notaries performing electronic notarizations to attach or logically associate their electronic signature and required information with the electronic record and to bind that signature so subsequent alterations are evident.
For remote notarizations the notary must use simultaneous audio‑visual communication, identify the signer by personal knowledge, two distinct identity‑proofing methods using public or private data sources, or a credible witness, and take reasonable steps to confirm the record signed is the same record the signer executed.
Notaries (or agents) must create an audio‑visual recording of each remote notarization and retain it: if the notary’s State sets a retention period, keep the greater of that period or five years; if the State sets no retention period, retain the recording for 10 years.
Federal courts must recognize notarizations valid under a notarial officer’s State law or this Act, and the notary’s signature and title are prima facie evidence of genuineness—certain State notarial officers’ signatures (e.g.
judges, clerks) are conclusive proof of authority.
States may adopt RULONA or craft alternative procedures, but cannot impose technology‑specific mandates; States keep authority to set commissions, discipline notaries, prohibit performance of remote/e‑notarizations as a sanction, and enforce false‑advertising rules (including bans on using 'notario' or offering immigration/legal services unless licensed).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Federal authorization and minimum rules for electronic notarizations
Section 3 permits a notary public to notarize electronic records that occur in or affect interstate commerce unless state law forbids it. Practically, it imposes two technical requirements: the notary’s electronic signature (plus any other required information) must be attached or logically associated with the electronic record, and it must be bound to the record in a way that makes later modification evident. That binding requirement is aimed at document integrity and will push practitioners toward tamper‑evident signatures or digital seals rather than loose image attachments.
Standards for remote notarizations, identity proofing, and retention
Section 4 authorizes remote notarizations that occur in or affect interstate commerce and sets detailed procedures. The signer must appear ‘‘personally’’ via simultaneous audio‑visual technology. Identification can rely on personal knowledge, two distinct identity‑proofing processes that pull from public or private data sources, or a credible witness who meets the statute’s identification tests. The notary must make an audio‑visual recording of the transaction and preserve it for statutory minimums tied to State rules (default 10 years where no State retention law exists). The section also covers cross‑border signers: if the remotely located signer is outside U.S. jurisdiction, the record must relate to U.S. jurisdictional interests and not be prohibited where the signer is located.
Cross‑jurisdictional recognition by Federal courts and States
Sections 5 and 6 require Federal courts and each State to recognize notarizations that are valid under the notarial officer’s State law or under this Act when the notarization relates to a public act, record, judicial proceeding, or otherwise occurs in or affects interstate commerce. These sections add evidentiary rules: a notary’s signature and title are prima facie evidence of genuineness in court, and signatures/titles of certain State officers (notaries, judges, clerks) can conclusively establish authority. The practical effect is to reduce litigation over whether an out‑of‑State e‑ or remote notarization satisfies local formalities.
Validity, remedies, and preservation of practice‑of‑law rules
Section 8 clarifies that failing to meet a federal requirement does not automatically invalidate a notarization and that injured parties retain causes of action under State or Federal law for fraud, forgery, incapacity, duress, or related defects. The section also expressly preserves State laws on the practice of law, so nothing in the Act lets a notary perform legal services otherwise restricted to licensed attorneys.
Preemption carve‑outs and State flexibility
Section 9 permits States to modify or supersede sections 3 or 4 for State‑law purposes either by adopting the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA) or by setting additional or alternative procedures that are consistent with the Act and that do not favor a particular technology. Regardless, any State modification must require retention of audio‑visual recordings of remote notarizations for at least five years. This carve‑out creates a federal floor but allows States to set a higher ceiling on certain operational details.
State supervision, special commissions, and false advertising rules
Section 10 preserves broad State authority: regulators can set standards of care, require special commissions or endorsements for e‑ or remote notarizations, suspend or revoke commissions, and sanction notaries for misconduct. The section also defines false or deceptive advertising—for example, a notary (unless a licensed attorney) may not use the terms 'notario'/'notario publico' or represent that they can provide immigration or legal representation or receive compensation for those services. A signed attestation during a remote notarization can be used to establish compliance with that prohibition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers and remote signers engaged in interstate transactions — gain greater certainty that remote and electronic notarizations will be recognized across State lines and in Federal court, reducing friction for mortgages, corporate filings, and other cross‑jurisdictional documents.
- Financial institutions and title insurers — get a federal evidentiary floor (presumption of genuineness and recognition rules) that lowers the risk of rejected out‑of‑State e‑notarizations and streamlines processing of interstate closings.
- Technology providers and RIN platforms — receive an explicit market for services that meet federal minimums (tamper‑evident signatures, synchronous AV, identity‑proofing) and clearer expectations for record retention and feature sets.
- Notarial officers who adopt remote/e‑notary services — can lawfully serve signers outside their physical State and expand client reach for interstate commerce while relying on federal backing for recognition.
Who Bears the Cost
- Notaries and small providers — face upfront and ongoing costs to implement synchronous audiovisual recording, robust identity‑proofing (two distinct processes), secure long‑term storage of recordings, and software that binds signatures to records.
- State notary regulators and courts — will need resources to supervise compliance, adjudicate disciplinary matters tied to new remote practices, and manage rules for transfer or archival of recordings after a notary’s death or disqualification.
- Technology vendors — must design products that avoid lock‑in to a specific technology while meeting tamper‑evident binding and identity‑proofing standards; compliance and data‑security obligations increase development and liability costs.
- Signers and privacy advocates — bear privacy risks and potential costs associated with long‑term storage of recorded audiovisual notarizations and personally identifiable information used for identity verification.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between national uniformity to enable interstate digital commerce and States’ traditional role overseeing notaries and protecting local consumers: the Act creates portability and evidentiary certainty for cross‑border notarizations while preserving State authority to set commissions, impose sanctions, and mandate additional safeguards—but that preservation risks a fragmented regulatory landscape that undermines some of the Act’s goals.
The bill builds a federal baseline but intentionally leaves significant authority with States—creating a hybrid regulatory regime that both simplifies and complicates compliance. States can adopt RULONA or add ‘‘additional or alternative’’ requirements, but those changes must be consistent with the Act and not mandate a specific technology.
That language prevents States from forcing a single technical solution, but it permits a patchwork of procedural differences (for example, different identity‑proofing standards or retention durations) that providers will need to map and implement.
Another practical tension concerns validity versus enforceability: Section 8 says failure to meet a federal requirement does not by itself invalidate a notarization, yet Section 10 allows States to sanction notaries for breaching duties or standards of care and to deny special authorizations. That bifurcation means a document signed via remote notarization might remain legally recognized while the notary faces discipline—useful for parties seeking document stability but awkward for regulators and insurers allocating liability.
Finally, retention and privacy present thorny implementation questions: long minimum retention (default 10 years) improves evidence availability but raises security, access, and data‑minimization concerns—who bears the storage cost, how records are protected, and how long PII used for identity‑proofing is kept will matter in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.