A screenshot has no legal value: certify the content (Guide 2025)
It’s a common misconception that printing a web page or attaching a screenshot is enough to prove online facts in court. In practice, screenshots are easily challenged: they can be edited, lack verifiable technical context, and rarely meet the standards of authenticity and integrity that courts expect. If you need legal weight, you need a Certified Copy—a forensically acquired package sealed with a digital signature and a qualified timestamp.
Why screenshots are weak (and often rejected or given little weight)
- No guaranteed authenticity. A screenshot does not prove that what you see is what was online at a given time; basic editing can alter it without leaving obvious traces.
- Missing context and metadata. Courts often look for URLs, exact timestamps, headers/IDs, linked files and source code—none of which are reliably captured in a simple image.
- Partial and non-reproducible. Dynamic content, lazy-loaded media, scripts and downloadable files are not preserved. What you print may be incomplete vs. the original online state.
- “Metadata fallacy.” Even if a screenshot file has metadata, those data describe the image file, not the original web resource; a “screenshot of an edited screenshot” will still carry fresh, “authentic” image metadata while the content itself is fabricated.
What courts look for instead: authenticity + integrity + time
Across Europe, the baseline is simple: is the item what it purports to be, unchanged, at a known date? EU law recognises qualified electronic signatures and qualified electronic timestamps as powerful ways to establish identity and time, and national civil-procedure rules typically require proof mechanisms that resist dispute.
-
Under eIDAS (Reg. (EU) 910/2014), a qualified electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature and is recognised across all Member States; electronic evidence cannot be disregarded just because it is electronic. A qualified timestamp provides a trusted date/time for the data. Eur-Lex+1
National snapshots (illustrative)
- France – Code civil, art. 1379. A reliable copy (“copie fiable”) has the same probative force as the original; reliability is assessed by the judge, and certain reproduction processes benefit from a presumption of reliability (Décret 2016-1673). legifrance.gouv.fr+1
- Germany – ZPO § 371a. Private electronic documents with a qualified electronic signature are treated like private deeds for evidentiary force; the authenticity presumption flows from the qualified signature check. dejure.org+1
- Spain – LEC art. 326. Private documents have full evidentiary value unless authenticity is impugned; if contested, additional proof is needed—i.e., you must be able to demonstrate integrity and origin, which a plain screenshot cannot. BOE+1
Takeaway: A forensically acquired and cryptographically sealed package aligns with what European judges expect—verifiable origin, unchanged content, certain date/time.
What a defensible Certified Copy contains
To transform fragile online content into robust evidence, we produce a forensic acquisition that preserves:
- Exact URLs and capture timestamps (including page state and chronology).
- Page content and source code, with linked resources (images, documents, scripts, media).
- Relevant identifiers and metadata (e.g., profile/user IDs, message IDs, headers).
- Optional capture video of the acquisition and SHA-256 hash attestation (on request).
We then seal everything in a single evidence container: .zip.p7m (CAdES) or .tsd (Time-Stamped Data) with digital signature and qualified EU timestamp. By default the certification is valid across the European Union; on request, we apply an international timestamp suitable for recognition worldwide. The sealed file is independently verifiable with standard EU-qualified signature software commonly used by courts.
For the collection/acquisition phase, we follow the ISO/IEC 27037 guidelines on identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence and internationally recognised best-practice guides on electronic evidence. ISO+2Consiglio d’Europa+2
FAQ highlights
“Is presenting a screenshot illegal?” No—but it’s weak evidence. It can be admitted and then disregarded or rebutted because the other side can plausibly allege manipulation.
“Can you ‘authenticate’ a screenshot later?” Not in a way that cures the fundamental defects. What courts expect is proper acquisition and cryptographic sealing at the time of certification, not a retroactive claim that a picture was genuine.
“Why is your method different?” Because it couples a forensic workflow (complete, reproducible, auditable capture) with qualified trust services (signature + timestamp) recognised under EU law. Eur-Lex
References (selection)
- eIDAS Regulation (EU) 910/2014 – legal effect of qualified signatures & timestamps; EU-wide recognition. Eur-Lex+1
- France, Code civil art. 1379 & Décret 2016-1673 – reliable copies and presumption of reliability. legifrance.gouv.fr+1
- Germany, ZPO § 371a – evidentiary force of qualified-signed electronic documents. dejure.org+1
- Spain, LEC art. 326 – private documents and the need to prove authenticity if contested. BOE+1
- ISO/IEC 27037:2012 – guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition and preservation of digital evidence; CoE Electronic Evidence Guide (context & principles). ISO+1
