Are Online Waivers Legal in Maryland?

Maryland is one of the stronger states for waivers. Its courts generally enforce clear releases of ordinary negligence, its highest court has enforced a parent's release of a child's claims, and assumption of risk is still a complete defense. This guide is for Maryland gyms, play centers, camps, tour operators, rental shops and event organizers. It covers electronic signatures, how Maryland courts treat releases, the rule on parents signing for children, and what else a signed agreement does for your business.

This guide is general information about Maryland law, with links to the statutes and cases, so you and your attorney can look into anything that applies to your business.

Waiver Law in Maryland at a Glance

Are Electronic Signatures Legal in Maryland?

Yes. Maryland's version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is in Title 21 of the Commercial Law Article. Section 21-106 provides that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic, and that an electronic signature satisfies a law requiring a signature. The federal ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.) says the same for interstate commerce. A waiver signed on a phone or tablet is a signed waiver.

Are Liability Waivers Enforceable in Maryland?

Generally, yes. The leading case is Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 644 A.2d 522 (1994), in which the Court of Appeals (now called the Supreme Court of Maryland) enforced an exculpatory clause in an investment account agreement. The court said that "in the absence of legislation to the contrary, exculpatory clauses are generally valid," and that freedom of contract is best served by enforcing them. It then listed three exceptions:

1. A party can't excuse its liability for intentional harm or for "the more extreme forms of negligence, i.e., reckless, wanton, or gross."
2. The contract can't be the product of grossly unequal bargaining power, where one side is "at the mercy of the other's negligence."
3. Exculpatory clauses are not allowed in transactions affecting the public interest, such as public utilities, common carriers and innkeepers, or other transactions so important to the public that a release would be "patently offensive." The court called this standard "a strict one."

Fitness Clubs and Recreation

In Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc., 132 Md. App. 271, 752 A.2d 631 (2000), a new member hurt her back on a weight machine during her initial evaluation. Her participation agreement released the club "from all acts of active or passive negligence." The Court of Special Appeals enforced it. The court explained that a release "need not contain or use the word 'negligence' or any other 'magic words,'" but its language must clearly and specifically show the intent to release the defendant from liability for its own negligence (quoting Adloo v. H.T. Brown Real Estate, Inc., 1996). It also rejected her arguments that a fitness club is a public-interest service and that a standard form showed grossly unequal bargaining power.

Waivers for Minors in Maryland

Maryland is one of the states where a parent's pre-injury release for a child has been enforced by the state's highest court. In BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714, 80 A.3d 345 (2013), a father signed a release for his children to use the store's free supervised play area. It released BJ's "individually and on behalf of my child" from claims "caused in whole or in part by the negligence" of BJ's. His five-year-old later fell from a play structure onto a thinly carpeted concrete floor and suffered a serious head injury.

The intermediate court had struck the release, drawing a line between commercial businesses and community programs. The Court of Appeals reversed. It found nothing in Maryland statutes or case law limiting a parent's authority to make this decision for a child, held that the agreement was not a transaction affecting the public interest under Wolf, and rejected the commercial/non-commercial distinction. The release barred the family's claims. Two points to keep in mind:

• The play area in Rosen was a free member benefit. Courts could weigh other facts differently, such as a paid, higher-risk activity, and Wolf's exceptions still apply.
• Gross negligence and intentional harm remain outside any release, whoever signs it.

More Than a Release

Maryland still recognizes the traditional defenses that turn on what the injured person knew and did. In ADM Partnership v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 702 A.2d 730 (1997), the Court of Appeals explained that, if established, assumption of risk "functions as a complete bar to recovery." The defense depends on showing that the person knew and appreciated the risk and voluntarily faced it. Maryland also remains one of the few states that still applies contributory negligence; a 2025 Appellate Court decision reaffirmed that only the legislature or the Supreme Court of Maryland can change it.

That makes a signed record of your warnings worth having, separate from the release language:

• Warnings and rules. A form describing the specific risks and rules, with the guest's acknowledgment of each, is evidence of what they were told and agreed to. How much it matters depends on the facts.
• Families. After Rosen, the parent's form can cover the parent's and the child's claims, and it also records the parent's consent to the child taking part.
• Medical information and consent. Health conditions, emergency contacts, consent to treatment and photo consent, collected before the activity.

Points to Raise With Your Attorney

WaiverFile doesn't draft waivers, and the wording of your agreement is a job for you and your attorney. Based on the cases above, these are points worth raising when preparing a Maryland agreement:

• Intent to release the business's own negligence. The releases enforced in Seigneur and Rosen both referred to negligence, even though no particular words are required.
• Placement and readability. In Rosen, the court noted the release language was in a smaller font but printed in bold just above the parent's signature line.
• Voluntary participation. Both cases involved optional activities customers could skip or find elsewhere, which the courts weighed under the bargaining-power and public-interest exceptions.
• Who signs for whom. The Rosen release said it was signed individually and on behalf of the child.
• The specific risks. Assumption of risk turns on what the guest knew and appreciated.

How WaiverFile Helps Maryland Businesses

Once your agreement is written, WaiverFile makes it easy for every guest to sign it and keeps a complete, easy-to-find record of each one:

• Your agreement, laid out your way. Add the agreement text you and your attorney prepared, and use the editor's formatting options (bold, capitals, font size) to lay it out the way it was written. The wording and format are up to you.
• A checkbox or initials where you want them. Add initial boxes inside the agreement text and required checkboxes for the rules, risks and clauses you choose, so each one has its own acknowledgment.
• Parents and children on one form. A parent signs for themselves and adds each child by name and date of birth, and minors are flagged at check-in.
• A record of what was signed. Each signed form stores the signature, the answers, and the date and time, plus the IP address and device for online signing. Add a photo of each signer or their ID if you like.
• Medical questions. Required questions capture health conditions and emergency contacts before guests arrive. HIPAA features add extra protection for health information.
• Sign anywhere. Guests sign ahead by email, text, QR code or your website, or on a tablet at the front desk, and the Venue app works offline. Waivers are built into online booking, so you see each guest's status at check-in.
• Records you can produce. Search any waiver in seconds, or download them in bulk as a ZIP file for any date range.

Start with one of our free waiver templates, adapt it for Maryland with your attorney, and set up a free account to start collecting signatures.

Sources and Further Reading

• Md. Code, Com. Law 21-106 (Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, legal recognition)
• 15 U.S.C. 7001 (federal ESIGN Act)
• Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525, 644 A.2d 522 (1994)
• Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc., 132 Md. App. 271, 752 A.2d 631 (2000)
• BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Rosen, 435 Md. 714, 80 A.3d 345 (2013)
• ADM Partnership v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 702 A.2d 730 (1997)
• Rollins Smalkin, "Contributory Negligence Remains Cornerstone of Maryland Insurance Litigation" (Dec. 2025, on Goldman v. Progressive)

Published January 8, 2021 · Updated November 4, 2026