The regulation of electronic documents arises from the technological transformation of commerce, becoming a cornerstone of legal certainty. In Mexico, NOM-151-SCFI-2016, also known as NOM 151, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on March 30, 2017, establishes the technical and legal standard for the preservation of data messages and the digitization of documents, replacing NOM-151-SCFI-2002.
For purposes of this regulation, the Mexican Commercial Code, in Article 89, defines a data message as “information generated, sent, received, or stored by electronic, optical, or any other technological means.” This broad definition makes it clear that it is not limited to formally electronic documents but encompasses any form of information capable of being processed and stored digitally, such as emails, contracts executed online, or digitized documents. Likewise, Article 89 Bis of the same code expressly recognizes that legal validity or effects cannot be denied to information contained in a data message solely because it is in electronic format, functionally equating it with printed documentation, provided that it complies with applicable legal provisions.
The main purpose of NOM-151 is to ensure that information generated in electronic media, as well as that digitized from physical documents, preserves essential characteristics such as integrity, authenticity, and availability. This is particularly relevant in the commercial sphere, where merchants are required by the Commercial Code to retain information related to their transactions.
With respect to its scope of application”, the NOM is generally applicable to all merchants who, pursuant to commercial legislation, preserve data messages or digitize documentation related to their activities. This includes contracts, invoices, receipts, and any other relevant documents used to evidence commercial acts.
One of the most important aspects of the standard is the regulation of the process for preserving data messages. To this end, technical mechanisms are established to ensure that the information has not been altered since its creation. Among these mechanisms is the use of cryptographic technologies and digital time stamps issued by certification service providers. These time stamps make it possible to prove that a document existed at a specific moment and that it has remained intact, which is key to its evidentiary value.
Additionally, the standard regulates in detail the process of digitizing physical documents, allowing them to be converted into data messages with full legal validity. For this purpose, digitization must faithfully reproduce the original document, respecting its content, form, and essential characteristics. Moreover, the process must be controlled by a legally authorized third party, who will verify that the conversion is carried out in a complete and unalterable manner.
NOM-151 also establishes specific technical requirements to ensure the quality of digitized documents. For example, it sets minimum resolution standards for images, as well as parameters for audio and video. It also requires that data messages include metadata and appropriate formats to ensure their proper preservation and accessibility over time.
A fundamental element of NOM-151 is the certificate of preservation of data messages, which is issued by a certification service provider. This certificate incorporates elements such as the electronic digital fingerprint of the document and a digital time stamp, making it possible to prove its existence and integrity. The validity of these certificates is at least ten years, although it may be extended depending on the user’s legal or commercial needs.
Furthermore, the standard allows that, once physical documents have been properly digitized and their integrity ensured, they may be destroyed, provided that applicable legal provisions are complied with. This represents a significant advantage in terms of storage, operational efficiency, and cost reduction for companies.
Now, in the judicial sphere, the interpretation and application of NOM-151-SCFI-2016 has been analyzed by the Federal Courts. In particular, a criterion issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court in Civil Matters of the First Circuit, published in the Federal Judicial Weekly in December 2025 under digital record number 2031573, establishes a clear limit to the powers of the judge in the initial stage of oral commercial proceedings.
According to this isolated precedent, a judge cannot determine, through a simple visual reading of digital documents submitted with the complaint, whether they comply with the technical requirements set forth in NOM-151-SCFI-2016. This is because verifying aspects such as document integrity, the authenticity of an electronic signature, or the validity of digital time stamps requires specialized knowledge in information technology.
In this regard, the court recognizes that the assessment of compliance with NOM-151 is an inherently technical matter, which must be subject to expert evidence and, where appropriate, challenge by the defendant during the proceedings. Therefore, it is improper for a judge to dismiss a claim based on a superficial assessment or without the assistance of specialized knowledge, as this would improperly replace a technical evaluation with a merely intuitive one.
This criterion strengthens the principles of access to justice and due process by preventing technical formalities from being applied restrictively at the initial stage of proceedings. It also acknowledges the inherent complexity of electronic documents and the need for their analysis to be conducted under appropriate evidentiary standards.
In conclusion, NOM-151-SCFI-2016 constitutes an essential legal instrument for the modernization of commerce in Mexico, as it provides certainty regarding the legal value of electronic and digitized documents. Its proper application not only facilitates the transition to digital environments but also strengthens legal certainty in commercial transactions. In turn, recent judicial interpretation reinforces its scope by defining the role of judicial authorities and ensuring that the evaluation of data messages is carried out with the technical rigor that their nature requires.
