Liability of electronic certification service providers to e-consumers in UK and Omani civil litigation

This thesis argues that simple electronic signatures in general (like e-mail addresses and typing a name into an e-mail), and digital signatures in particular, are considered the most appropriate means for legally binding electronic transactions. However, this work highlights cases showing that e-signatures alone cannot effectively determine the identities of the communicating parties in the virtual world. Since the late 1990s in Europe, lawmakers have offered a potential solution to the lack of trust from e-consumers of electronic businesses by regulating a sort of qualified e-certification system provided by electronic certification service providers (CSPs). By displaying the certificate to the public, e-merchants present themselves to the public as reliable and legitimate entities. In turn, e-consumers will be less reluctant to reveal their personal data and financial accounts to e-merchants. Nonetheless, this work argues that the accuracy of the qualified e-certificate is not an absolute; once the certificate is issued, there are many circumstances where e-certificates are bound to be inaccurate like in the case of bankruptcy of the e-merchant. The thesis also argues that it is inaccurate to claim that the EU Parliament has recognised a cause of action against CSP for e-consumers who have suffered a loss due to their reliance on inaccurate qualified e-certificate. From this standpoint, this thesis examines whether e-consumers have a cause of action against CSPs for damages caused by relying on an inaccurate qualified e-certificate. The work starts with the examination of specific liability rules under relevant UK and Omani e-signatures regulations. After that, this thesis explores whether the common law principles of delict in Scotland and tort in England and Oman suggest that CSPs can be held liable for e-consumers' losses.