Over the past decade, electronic signature platforms like DocuSign have made it quick and easy to send, sign and return documents online. But most of these tools focus on getting a signature, not on making sure the signer truly understood what they agreed to. At the same time, studies show that most people skip reading long legal documents online. People often scroll straight to the end and click “agree” without absorbing the details. This raises an important question: does simply capturing a signature prove that the person understood the agreement? Below are twelve ways
A digital signature simply shows that a signer *clicked* to accept the document – it doesn’t prove that they understood the terms. In legal terms, the-signature is evidence of acceptance, but it contains no proof of comprehension. As one analysis notes, e-signature platforms like DocuSign were “built to collect signatures quickly, not to confirm understanding”. In other words, the process records the final “yes” but not *how* the signer arrived at that decision. (For more on this idea, see our article on informed consent beyond signatures.)
Many e-signature systems rely on an IP address log and email timestamp as proof of who signed. However, IP addresses can be easily masked or shared. People often work behind VPNs or corporate networks, or on shared devices, meaning a signer’s IP address may not uniquely identify them. In a world of remote work and hotspot networks, using IP alone is a brittle identity signal. In contrast, our platform ties consent to the individual through stronger checks (such as biometric or voice verification) and an audit trail of the user’s interaction (see How
In a standard e-sign workflow, all the supporting context is discarded once the document is signed. The final contract file (the signed PDF) shows only the terms and the-signature – it doesn’t include any of the explanations, summaries, or Q&A that the signer experienced. In practice, people reach agreements only after explanations, questions, and reviewing summaries, but traditional tools ignore that journey. As our Context Contracts article explains, “the signed document records consent, but not the journey to consent, leaving a dangerous blind spot”. In short, contracts capture the what of the agreement, but not the how, and that missing context is exactly where misunderstandings take root.
Simple design changes can make contracts far more understandable. Behavioural science shows that involving people actively and multisensorially boosts retention and comprehension. For example, the “production effect” means people remember information better if they speak it aloud.
Research consistently finds that almost no one reads long contracts carefully. In one study, over 90% of people accepted terms and conditions without reading them. Our own analysis similarly notes that “most people do not read full contracts” – they tend to scan quickly or skip to the-signature. In the online world, the opportunity to read is often an illusion. People are busy and will sign to move forward, assuming any unexpected terms will be reasonable. The result is a compliance tick-box, not an informed agreement. This is why true consent cannot be assumed from a quick click.
Most e-sign systems still present agreements as dense, linear PDFs – yet modern digital content is very different. Marketing and news have shifted to short, scannable, multimedia formats, but legal contracts often lag behind. In other words, contracts tend to be “dense, text-heavy, linear,” even as communication elsewhere is bite-sized and multi-format. People today expect information in chunks, with clear headings, highlighted text, or even videos. That means agreements should too. In practice,
Digital natives who grew up on YouTube, TikTok and instant messaging often treat contracts as another quick click. Studies suggest Gen Z is especially prone to skipping long text – in one survey about a third admitted they never fully read contracts, and many later faced hidden fees or surprises. Younger users expect simple, interactive formats, not dense PDFs. By using video explainers, voice confirmations and chat-like Q&A within the flow,
Traditional e-signatures only record a timestamp and a signature image.
Bulk signing lets users apply one-signature to dozens of agreements at once. While efficient, it massively multiplies the chance that each document was not actually read or understood. One-click “Sign All” flows encourage people to breeze through agreements without pausing. This convenience makes “signing blind” even more common. That’s why
Regulators now expect firms to ensure customers really understand what they sign. For example, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have made it clear that businesses must ensure people understand what they’re signing up for. In practice this means “clarity must come before consent” – key information must be easy to find and explainable. Under the FCA’s new Consumer Duty, firms must demonstrate that important disclosures were delivered clearly and confirmed by the customer, not just buried in fine print. In short, signatures alone are no longer enough: regulators expect proof of understanding, not just a tick-box.
Confusion over contract terms drives complaints and disputes. If clients misunderstand their commitments or fees, they will complain or even take legal action. For instance, the UK’s Financial Ombudsman reports about 165,000 new complaints a year, many from customers who “didn’t understand” something in their agreement. In fact, roughly one in three such disputes is resolved in the customer’s favor precisely because the firm cannot prove the customer was adequately informed. By creating a transparent, clear process up front,
Electronic signatures were a huge step forward in digitizing contracts, but they only capture the-signature itself – not understanding. The next step is making sure that signatures reflect informed consent. As we argue in our Informed Consent guide, a signature “might tick the legal box today, but it will not hold up in a world where informed consent becomes the norm”. The industry is clearly moving in that direction: agreements must become more conversation-like, built around client comprehension. In short, e-signatures replaced the pen on paper; now we need a new paradigm that replaces confusion with clarity, which is exactly what
| Feature | Traditional e-signature platforms | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Capturing a signature quickly | Demonstrating understanding of key terms |
| Identity evidence | IP address and email trail | Confirmed engagement with the agreement |
| Key terms | Buried in long documents | Clearly summarised up front |
| Behavioural design | Minimal (designed for speed) | Built-in (multimedia, interaction, memory aids) |
| Bulk signing | Common (many docs signed at once) | Not allowed (each agreement treated individually) |
| Evidence of understanding | Limited (basic audit log) | Rich (video/audio records, transcript, questions answered) |
Many organisations searching for digital agreement tools start by looking at DocuSign. DocuSign and similar platforms excel at helping organisations send and sign documents online efficiently. However, they are primarily built to *execute* documents, not to ensure understanding.
Are e-signatures legally binding? In general, yes. Laws like the US ESIGN Act and UETA, as well as the EU’s eIDAS regulation, grant electronic signatures the same legal validity as handwritten ones. That means a signed PDF or agreement is usually enforceable in court just like a paper signature. However, it’s crucial to remember: a signature only proves the person agreed to something; it does not prove they understood the content.
Do people actually read terms and conditions? Almost never. Research consistently shows that most people do not read long contracts in full, especially online. For example, one study found over 90% of users accept terms without reading them. In practice, clients tend to scroll to the end and click “agree” to proceed. In most cases, agreements are signed in seconds, so a signature often isn’t evidence of understanding.
What is the difference between a digital signature and informed consent? A digital signature is simply a mark or click indicating acceptance of a document. Informed consent goes further: it means the person clearly understands the key terms before agreeing. A signature only shows agreement, while informed consent shows understanding. In other words, one signals that the button was clicked, whereas the other requires confirming that the signer saw and comprehended the important points. Proving informed consent usually means recording interactions (summaries, explanations, confirmations) leading up to the-signature.
Why can bulk signing be risky? Bulk signing (applying one-signature to multiple agreements at once) increases the chance that people sign without reading. With bulk signing, recipients typically see a list of documents and sign all as a batch, often out of convenience. This compounds the unread-contract problem: if one agreement went unread, dozens might.
How can businesses improve digital agreement processes? Many are exploring ways to present contracts more clearly and interactively. This can include adding plain-English summaries or Q&A steps before the-signature, using audio or video explainers for complex points, and allowing recipients to ask questions within the signing flow. For example, starting with a “Key Facts” summary (like a customer facts panel) helps orient users to the important terms. In general, focusing on transparency and user understanding (rather than just legal formality) has been shown to reduce downstream complaints and disputes. See our resources on reducing complaints for more strategies.
Electronic signatures revolutionised how we execute contracts online. But the next challenge is ensuring people truly understand what they agree to. As we describe in our article on the future of agreements, modern contracts should feel “like a conversation, not a hurdle”. Digital interactions will only become faster and more automated, so the need for clear communication around agreements will grow. Platforms like
Internal links:
External links: