Disclaimer: The Electronic Commerce Security Act (ECSA) was repealed and replaced with the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA), effective June 25, 2021. Please note that this change may affect the continued accuracy of this guidance as it pertains to the ECSA.

Yes, we believe the customer may mark an “X” as her legally binding signature. From a practical standpoint, permitting a customer to use an “X” signature on a deposit agreement or signature card may slightly increase the risk of forgery for the account. However, unless your institution relies on signature cards to authenticate customer signatures on a regular basis, this practice may not greatly increase the risks of forgery on the account. Also, some institutions have assisted customers in similar situations by providing them with stamps or a typed statement, such as “By My Mark,” to use in conjunction with an “X” signature.

There are some Illinois cases confirming that an “X” signature is valid. Illinois courts have upheld signatures by an X mark, even in the context of signing a will or trust, Bailey v. Clark, 203 Ill.App.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Dist. 1990), or signing a deed to real property, Witt v. Panek, 408 Ill. 328, 333 (1951). In the context of business contracts, an Illinois court summed up several cases and stated that “in a variety of contexts, the law has consistently interpreted ‘signed’ to embody not only the act of subscribing a document, but also anything which can reasonably be understood to symbolize or manifest the signer’s intent to adopt a writing as his or her own and be bound by it.” Just Pants v. Wagner, 247 Ill.App.3d 166, 173–174 (1st Dist. 1993). A more recent case restated this rule: “Marks of many different sorts may qualify as signatures, as long as the mark ‘manifests that the instrument has been executed or adopted by the party to be charged by it.’” Roti v. Roti, 364 Ill.App.3d 191, 196 (1st Dist. 2006). The Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has also repeated this rule, stating that “neither the common law nor the UCC requires a handwritten signature.” Cloud Corp. v. Hasbro Inc., 312 F.3d 289, 296 (7th Cir. 2002). Under these general principles, we believe that an X mark would be considered a valid signature under Illinois law — a conclusion that is bolstered by the two cases holding X marks to be valid, though neither of those cases dealt with contractual agreements such as a deposit agreement or signature card.

In addition, there are definitions of “signature” in Illinois statutes that may be helpful, though we are not aware of any statutes that are directly on point. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) would not apply to a deposit account agreement, but its definition of “signature” includes “any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.” 810 ILCS 5/1-201(b)(37). Similarly, the Electronic Commerce Security Act, which applies only to electronic signatures, defines “signature” as “any symbol executed or adopted . . . by or on behalf of a person with intent to authenticate a record.” 5 ILCS 175/5-105.