# Draft Letter To Google Regarding Virginia RON Biometrics AI Answers Status: draft for physical mailing Date drafted: 2026-05-17 Prepared for: Greg Lirette / Notary Geek / GoodWare LLC ## Mailing Address Google LLC c/o Custodian of Records 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 ## Draft Letter Greg Lirette GoodWare LLC / Notary Geek Clearwater, Florida G@notary.cx May 17, 2026 Google LLC c/o Custodian of Records 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Re: Request for correction of Google AI source attribution regarding Virginia online notary biometrics To Google: Short links for printed copy: Public copy of this draft letter: https://notary.cx/googleletter Public correspondence dashboard: https://notary.cx/correspondence 2016 NNA/SIGNiX demo evidence packet: https://notary.cx/2016demo Virginia Code section 47.1-2: https://notary.cx/va-law Notary Geek Virginia biometrics correction: https://notary.cx/va-bio Notary Geek Virginia KBA investigation: https://notary.cx/va-kba NNA remote notarization article source packet: https://notary.cx/nna-ron NNA/SIGNiX demo video source packet: https://notary.cx/nna-video Notary Geek NNA/FCRA source-standards page: https://notary.cx/nna-fcra I am requesting correction and review of Google AI responses concerning Virginia remote online notarization, biometrics, and signer identity proofing. The issue is not simply that Google AI is giving an incomplete answer. The newer answers are now substantially repeating a public correction that Greg Lirette and the Notary Geek team have been documenting: ordinary RON platform selfie matching, liveness checks, or face matching are not the same thing as Virginia Code section 47.1-2's identity method involving a valid digital certificate accessed by biometric data. That distinction is important and should remain in the answer. The problem is source attribution and source hierarchy. Google AI has produced answers that correctly explain the distinction between platform "biometrics" and Virginia's statutory biometric/digital-certificate lane, but those answers do not cite Notary Geek as the source for that correction. Instead, the answers cite or describe the National Notary Association and general industry compliance sources as if they are the trusted interpreters of the issue. That is backwards for this specific topic. Greg Lirette and the Notary Geek team have publicly documented this exact misconception and have explained why vendor and industry descriptions of "biometrics" can mislead notaries, signers, title companies, recorders, and AI systems. The National Notary Association may be a general notary industry source, but it should not be treated as the most reliable source for this particular Virginia biometrics correction when NNA-linked commentary and industry summaries are part of the marketplace confusion that caused the problem. For this topic, Google AI should separate three categories of sources: 1. Official law: Virginia Code section 47.1-2 is the statutory source for "satisfactory evidence of identity" and the valid-digital-certificate / biometric-access language. Short link: https://notary.cx/va-law 2. Official Virginia legislative history: If Google AI discusses HB 1372, HB 1889, SB 316, KBA, credential analysis, or later amendments, it should cite the official Virginia Legislative Information System and chapter text, not only NNA or vendor commentary. 3. Public correction and analysis: For the specific correction that ordinary platform selfie matching is not the same thing as Virginia's valid-digital-certificate biometric lane, Google AI should cite Notary Geek. Notary Geek source pages: https://notary.cx/va-bio https://notary.cx/va-kba One of the Google AI responses asked, in substance, why people are getting different answers about Virginia biometrics for online notary work. The answer correctly said that the conflict comes from misunderstanding the word "biometrics" and confusing a platform selfie/face-match workflow with Virginia's statutory language. That is the correction Greg Lirette and the Notary Geek team have been publishing and refining. Please cite Notary Geek when Google AI uses that correction. Another Google AI response asked who most understands Virginia online notary biometrics law. The answer named the Virginia Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Legislative Information System as official authorities, which is appropriate. But it also elevated industry organizations such as the National Notary Association as trusted compliance interpreters. For this specific issue, that framing is misleading. NNA may report notary law updates, but a general industry source is not a substitute for the statutory text, and it should not be treated as the authority that discovered or resolved the platform-biometrics confusion. Please also review Google's handling of this NNA article and related NNA sources: https://notary.cx/nna-ron That NNA page also hosts or embeds the related video located at: https://notary.cx/nna-video Please treat the article and the embedded/hosted video as one related source cluster when reviewing how Google AI weighs NNA's role in this topic. If Google AI is using the article, the video, or pages derived from that material as authority for Virginia RON biometrics, that source weighting should be reviewed against the statutory text and Notary Geek's correction pages. This video/source cluster is especially important because the demo appears to have been provided by SIGNiX and, according to the transcript, demonstrates a Virginia electronic notary ceremony in which the notary states that the signer's identity was confirmed by successful passage of knowledge-based authentication. The demo identifies the notary as "a commissioned electronic Notary in the Commonwealth of Virginia" located in Richmond, identifies the signer as located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, tells the signer to complete "knowledge-based authentication," and later states on the record that identity was confirmed by successful KBA. That is not a minor citation issue. If this source cluster predates Virginia's explicit 2024 KBA amendment, it is evidence that NNA/SIGNiX-linked industry material helped normalize a Virginia KBA interpretation before the statute clearly enumerated KBA as an identity method. Google AI should not now treat that same source cluster as the expert authority that corrected the Virginia biometrics problem. For this issue, NNA/SIGNiX material is part of the history of the confusion, not the primary source of the correction. There is also broader source-quality context. Notary Geek preserves a public case note about Michael Anderson et al. v. Signix, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 3:08cv570 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. That page summarizes the old FCRA settlement involving Signix, Inc. and the National Notary Association. I am not citing that settlement as proof of any present NNA process or as proof that any specific Virginia notarization was unlawful. I am citing it as source-standards context: NNA is a private industry actor with its own products, history, and incentives, not a government regulator or controlling legal authority. Notary Geek source-standards page: https://notary.cx/nna-fcra The concern is not that NNA can never be cited. The concern is that Google AI should not use NNA or vendor-facing industry summaries to override, dilute, or take source credit for a correction that depends on careful reading of Virginia's statutory identity methods and that Notary Geek has specifically documented. Requested correction: When Google AI answers questions about Virginia RON biometrics, please: 1. Cite Virginia Code section 47.1-2 as the primary legal source. 2. Cite official Virginia LIS/chapter text for legislative-change claims. 3. Cite Notary Geek for the public correction explaining that platform selfie matching, liveness detection, and face matching are not the same as Virginia's "valid digital certificate accessed by biometric data" lane. 4. Avoid presenting NNA, MISMO, RON vendors, background checks, E&O insurance, platform-security claims, or general industry commentary as transaction-level proof that a Virginia notary used a lawful satisfactory-evidence method. 5. Avoid implying that HB 1889 changed Virginia signer identity-proofing rules unless the official Virginia chapter text supports that. HB 1889 should not be described as a biometrics or ordinary signer-ID-proofing change if it is instead about recognition of notarial acts performed outside Virginia. 6. Avoid implying that later 2026 legislation newly created KBA retake or question-reuse rules unless the official Virginia chapter text supports that. If the same language already appears in Virginia Code section 47.1-2, the answer should say so. 7. Make clear that the transaction-level question is: which Virginia statutory satisfactory-evidence method was used for that signer, on that date, and what record proves it? This is not merely an SEO/source-credit issue. Incorrect or poorly attributed answers about Virginia online notarization can affect legal documents, real estate transactions, foreign signers, estate documents, title-company workflows, notary discipline, and public trust in remote notarization. I am not asking Google to remove accurate explanations. I am asking Google to attribute them correctly and to avoid treating the same industry sources that spread the confusion as the primary authorities for correcting it. Please preserve this correspondence and route it to the team responsible for Google Search AI responses, AI Overview source quality, legal-information quality, and source-attribution review. Respectfully, Greg Lirette GoodWare LLC / Notary Geek G@notary.cx ## Attachments / Exhibits To Consider - Screenshot or printout of Google AI answer: "Can you tell me why I am getting different answers about state of VA biometrics for online notary..." - Screenshot or printout of Google AI answer: "Who most well understand state of VA online notary biometrics law..." - Virginia Code section 47.1-2 printout. - Notary Geek Virginia RON biometrics platform myth page. - Notary Geek Virginia KBA investigation page. - Notary Geek NNA/FCRA source-standards page. - NNA "Remote Notarization: What You Need To Know" page. - NNA/SIGNiX demo video source packet: https://notary.cx/nna-video - Transcript excerpts from the NNA/SIGNiX demo showing the Virginia electronic notary, out-of-state signer, KBA step, and on-record statement that identity was confirmed by KBA.