Why Read Receipts Do Not Prove That an Email Was Read

In professional and legal environments, it is common to hear a statement that, although intuitive, does not withstand rigorous technical or legal analysis:
“We have a read receipt, therefore we can prove that the recipient read the email.”

The reality is very different. Read receipts do not constitute valid proof, neither from a technical nor a legal standpoint. And what is most relevant is that this statement does not come only from the legal sector, but also from email providers themselves.

In this article, we analyze why read receipts do not serve as probative means, why they are increasingly obsolete, and what alternatives exist when it is necessary to certify an electronic communication.

What a Read Receipt Really Is

A read receipt is an optional functionality of some email clients that, if the recipient allows it, sends an automatic notification to the sender indicating that the message has been opened.

It is important to emphasize several fundamental aspects:

• It is not part of the standard email protocol (SMTP).
• It depends completely on the recipient’s email client.
• It requires a voluntary action or prior configuration by the recipient.

From its origin, the read receipt was conceived as an informative aid, not as a proof mechanism.

The Lack of Widespread Support in Email Clients

One of the most evident problems is that many email clients no longer support read receipts or block them by default. Among them are:

• Gmail, both in its web version and in mobile applications.
• Many email clients on mobile devices.
• Corporate environments with strict privacy and security policies.

This implies that, in practice, the sender cannot know if the recipient even has the technical capability to generate a read receipt, even if they have read the message.

The Dependence on the Recipient’s Will

Even when the email client supports read receipts, the system usually requests explicit confirmation from the recipient before sending it.

From a legal perspective, this point is decisive: proof cannot depend on the will of the opposing party. If the recipient decides not to send the receipt, the sender is left without any probative element.

What Read Receipts Do Not Prove

Even in the case of receiving a read receipt, it does not certify essential aspects:

• It does not prove that the email was read consciously.
• It does not demonstrate that the content was understood.
• It does not certify that attached files were opened.
• It does not indicate how long the message was visible.

In many cases, it is enough for the email to be displayed in a preview window for the system to generate the receipt, without there being a real reading.

The Ease of Falsification

Read receipts are not digitally signed, do not include an independent timestamp, and can be generated or manipulated with relative ease.

This fact is even documented by Google, which warns that read receipts do not offer authenticity guarantees, similar to how an ordinary email can be falsified.

Official Google reference:
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/9413651

Google and Gmail’s Explicit Position

Google has been especially clear in its documentation:

• Read receipts are not reliable.
• They do not guarantee that a message has been read.
• They should not be used as proof.

It is no coincidence that Gmail does not support standard read receipts in personal accounts and limits their use even in corporate environments.

The Common Error: Confusing Reading with Notification

From a legal standpoint, the most frequent error consists of confusing subjective reading with valid notification.

In law, what is relevant is not to prove that someone read a message, but that:

• The communication was correctly notified.
• The content was made available to the recipient.
• What was sent and when can be certified.

For this reason, regulations and jurisprudence focus on reliable delivery, not on reading.

Why Registered Email Does Provide Probative Value

Certified email precisely covers the points where read receipts fail:

• It does not depend on any action by the recipient.
• It certifies the complete content of the message.
• It certifies technical delivery to the destination server.
• It incorporates electronic signature and timestamping.
• It is verifiable even years later.

From a probative standpoint, it replaces uncertainty with demonstrable technical facts.

There are specific scenarios in which, in addition to delivery, it is necessary to certify effective access to the information. For these cases, eEvidence offers delivery via link, which allows recording access and download of content.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does a read receipt have legal validity in a trial?
No. Read receipts do not constitute reliable proof, as they depend on the recipient, do not guarantee content integrity, and are easily manipulable.

Why doesn’t Gmail support standard read receipts?
Because they do not offer technical or authenticity guarantees. Google considers that they are not a reliable mechanism to certify the reading of an email.

Can a recipient deny having read an email even if a receipt exists?
Yes. A read receipt does not prove conscious reading or understanding of the content, so it can be easily challenged.

What alternative exists if I need legal proof of a communication?
Registered email, which certifies content, sending, and delivery with legal validity, and in certain cases delivery via link to certify access.

Conclusion

Read receipts may be useful as orientative information, but they do not serve as technical or legal proof. They are optional, dependent on the recipient, easily falsifiable, and discouraged by providers such as Google.

When a communication has legal, contractual, or regulatory consequences, it is not enough to rely on a voluntary confirmation. It is necessary to have objective, independent, and verifiable proof.

In the professional sphere, read receipts inform. Registered email proves.