Aerotek, Inc. v. Lerone Boyd, Michael Marshall, Jimmy Allen, and Trojuan Cornett, 624 S.W.3d 199

Aerotek used an online-only hiring/onboarding application that required candidates to create a unique user ID, password, and security questions and to complete documents in a prescribed order.
The application first presented an Electronic Disclosure Agreement (EDA); after signing it, candidates were required to sign additional documents, including a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA), before completing onboarding.
The system recorded and timestamped each user action in a secure database and Aerotek testified the application could not be altered after submission.
Four employees completed the application (one with in-person assistance); each later sued Aerotek and Aerotek moved to compel arbitration, submitting the timestamped EDAs, MAAs, and database activity logs.
The employees submitted sworn declarations denying they saw or signed the MAAs; the trial court denied the motion to compel and the court of appeals affirmed.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding Aerotek conclusively established attribution of the electronic signatures under the Texas UETA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proof of the hiring application's security procedures can conclusively attribute electronic signatures under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 322.009(a)	Employees: Aerotek failed to prove efficacy of security procedures; mere system records are insufficient	Aerotek: unique credentials, business rules, timestamps, and immutable logs conclusively link records to the users	Court: Aerotek proved efficacy; attribution established; §322.009(a) shifts burden and denials alone do not create a fact issue
Whether non-IT testimony (Marsh) and testimony from the assisting employee suffice to prove system operation and integrity	Employees: Marsh is not an IT expert and was an interested witness; needed developer/forensic testimony	Aerotek: Marsh helped design, test, manage, and demonstrated the system; assistant corroborated routine assisted process	Court: Marsh’s testimony and Harper’s account were sufficiently clear and uncontroverted to be conclusive absent contrary evidence
Whether the employees’ sworn denials alone create a fact issue preventing summary attribution	Employees: sworn denials (and Ward v. Weaver) create a genuine issue of material fact	Aerotek: denials are mere argument without evidence disproving system integrity or showing alternative explanation	Court: simple denials are legally insufficient; employees bore the burden to offer evidence undermining the security procedures

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for conclusive evidence review)
Henry v. Cash Biz, LP, 551 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. 2018) (standard to compel arbitration requires proving a valid arbitration agreement)
USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (arbitrability and contract-formation principles)
Lofton v. Tex. Brine Corp., 777 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1989) (interested witness testimony may establish fact if clear and uncontradicted)
Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1983) (arguments are not evidence; scintilla rule)
Ward v. Weaver, 34 S.W.2d 1093 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1931) (historical case on sworn denial of signature discussed but distinguished)