E-signs and vulnerable clients: where most tools fail FCA expectations

by Chris Fortune

Aug 5, 2025 12:00:00 AM

What this blog contains:

Consumer Duty and the focus on vulnerable clients
Where traditional e-signature tools fall short
Accessible design: ensuring understanding for everyone
How i agree meets FCA expectations
Conclusion: fairness and informed consent

Consumer Duty and the focus on vulnerable clients

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has raised the bar for customer protection. Under the new Consumer Duty rules, simply collecting a signature is no longer enough – firms must be able to prove that customers actually understood the agreement. This is especially critical for consumers in vulnerable circumstances. “Vulnerable clients” can include people with cognitive impairments, low literacy, major life stresses, or other factors that make it harder for them to understand complex information. The FCA expects firms to support these customers by communicating clearly and providing additional help where needed. In practice, that means:

Using plain and intelligible language (avoiding jargon)
Presenting key information in a user-friendly way (e.g. summaries or visuals)
Giving customers enough time and opportunity to ask questions
Offering information in alternative formats for those who need it (like audio or large text)
Checking that the customer truly understands before they agree

These principles aim to ensure fair outcomes for all clients. Regulators and professional bodies stress that firms must tailor their communication to each client’s level of understanding – especially for those who are less familiar with legal/financial terms or who might struggle due to vulnerability. In short, the onus is now on businesses to demonstrably help customers understand what they’re signing up for. If a customer with limited understanding is allowed to sign a complex contract without support, the firm may be deemed non-compliant with its duties of fairness and care.

Where traditional e-signature tools fall short

Electronic signature platforms like DocuSign and Adobe Sign have made signing faster and easier, but they were built with speed in mind – not comprehension. Most e-signature tools assume that a signature equals agreement, and they do little to verify whether the signer has actually read or understood the content. This creates a dangerous gap, particularly for vulnerable clients. Common shortcomings of legacy e-sign tools include:

No comprehension checks: The software records that a document was signed, but it doesn’t confirm if the person read or absorbed the information.
One-size-fits-all format: Lengthy PDF contracts with dense legal text are presented in the same way to every user. There is typically no alternative format (like audio or summary) for those with visual, cognitive, or literacy challenges.
Lack of engagement data: Traditional platforms don’t track whether the signer spent time reviewing key terms or simply scrolled to the signature. If a client signs a complex document in seconds, that’s a red flag under FCA expectations.
No support for questions: Many e-sign workflows don’t actively encourage or facilitate client questions. A vulnerable customer might click “Sign” without ever feeling comfortable to ask for clarification.

Because of these issues, relying solely on a basic e-signature process can leave firms exposed. The FCA’s own reviews have found that many firms fail to provide accessible communication channels for vulnerable customers, and that there is often a “lack of testing of consumer understanding” in current processes. In other words, if your contract signing method doesn’t accommodate people’s needs or verify their comprehension, it “might raise a red flag” in the eyes of the regulator. Firms risk regulatory breaches, customer disputes, and reputational damage if clients later claim they didn’t realize what they agreed to. A signed PDF is simply not proof of an informed decision.

The good news is that the same practices that help vulnerable clients will improve understanding for all clients. Regulators advocate a “universal design” approach – making communications clear and accessible for everyone, rather than treating vulnerability as a special case. In the context of agreements, this means rethinking the signing journey to focus on clarity and consent, not just a quick signature. Key elements of an accessible, compliance-friendly agreement process include:

Clear, plain-language summaries: Instead of dumping 20 pages of fine print on the user, provide a concise summary of the most important terms in everyday language. This cuts through legalese and highlights fees, obligations, risks, and key points that every client should know.
Layered information delivery: Avoid overwhelming people with text. Use a layered approach where the summary gives the essentials and clients can drill down into details if they choose. For example, a client might see a short overview first, with the option to read full clauses only as needed.
Visual and audio aids: Many individuals absorb information better through listening or watching than reading. Short explainer videos or audio narration of the summary can be invaluable. An animated video or voiceover can walk the signer through the key terms, ensuring that even those with low literacy or visual impairments get the information in a digestible form.
Interactive confirmations: Build in steps where the client actively confirms their understanding. This could be a brief quiz, checkpoints that require ticking a box next to critical statements, or asking the person to verbally acknowledge key terms. The aim is to move from a passive “scroll and sign” to an active engagement with the content.
Support for questions and clarifications: The process should encourage users to pause and seek clarification if confused. For instance, an interface might include an “Ask a question” button or prompt the signer: “Do you want to review any section again?” before final consent. This is particularly important for a nervous or unsure client who might otherwise stay silent.
Audit trail of engagement: Beyond just logging the signature timestamp, record how the client interacted with the document. Did they watch the video? How long did they spend on the summary versus the fine print? Did they revisit any section? Capturing these data points creates proof that the client was properly informed, which is crucial if the decision is later called into question.

Designing an agreement flow with these features not only meets the FCA’s Consumer Understanding outcome – it also makes the experience more user-friendly. It treats every client with the assumption that they might need help (without stigma), which aligns with the modern regulatory mindset of inclusivity. Remember that an estimated 91% of people accept terms and conditions without reading them fully. Given that reality, tools and processes that actively promote understanding are no longer just a “nice to have” – they are a compliance imperative.

How i agree meets FCA expectations

i agree is an example of a platform built around the principles above, aiming to ensure truly informed consent rather than a superficial signature. It was designed by compliance-minded solicitors specifically to address the gaps in traditional e-signing. Here’s how i agree helps firms meet Consumer Duty obligations for all clients – including those who are vulnerable:

Every agreement opens with a human-friendly summary of the key terms (in plain English, with no jargon).
This summary is supplemented by a short video explanation with audio narration, bringing the terms to life in a clear, spoken format.
Clients are prompted to confirm their understanding at various points. For example, the platform might ask the user to reiterate or acknowledge a crucial term before proceeding. If they seem unsure, it guides them back to review the content again.
Multiple accessibility options are built in: support for screen readers, subtitles on videos, adjustable text size, and even simplified versions of the content if needed. There is no “special treatment” needed for a vulnerable user – the standard interface is designed to be usable by people of all abilities.
A recorded voice consent step can replace the traditional signature. Instead of merely clicking “sign,” the client gives their agreement by speaking a confirmation (captured via the platform). This serves two purposes: it leverages the proven memory benefits of speaking information out loud (enhancing recall for the client), and it creates a tangible record that the person verbally affirmed their consent to the key terms.
The platform maintains a detailed audit trail of the entire process – what the client viewed, for how long, any sections repeated, any questions asked, and the final voice or click confirmation. This kind of evidence goes far beyond an IP address and a timestamp. It demonstrates that the firm took “reasonable steps” to ensure the customer’s understanding at each stage.

By incorporating summaries, videos, interactive prompts and voice confirmations, i agree aligns closely with the FCA’s expectations in Consumer Duty Section 8 (consumer understanding). It directly addresses the mandate to present information “in a way customers can understand” and to support vulnerable customers with additional help or formats. Crucially, these features don’t just protect the customer – they protect the firm. In the event of a complaint or regulator inquiry, a company using i agree can show regulators an evidence trail of informed consent, not just a signed PDF. This drastically reduces the risk of disputes founded on “I didn’t understand what I was signing.”

Conclusion: fairness and informed consent

The drive to improve outcomes for vulnerable clients is reshaping how agreements are done. The FCA’s focus is clear: firms must ensure that every customer, regardless of their vulnerabilities, is given a fair chance to understand what they’re signing. Traditional e-signature tools – while convenient – often fail to meet this new standard of care. They capture a signature , but not the understanding behind it.

Compliance officers and legal teams should view the Consumer Duty as an opportunity to upgrade their client experience. By adopting consent-first approaches (like the one used by i agree ), organizations can turn a potential compliance headache into a trust-building exercise. Clients benefit by being better informed and more confident in their decisions; firms benefit by reducing complaints, legal challenges, and regulatory risks.

In the end, treating customers fairly isn’t just about avoiding fines – it’s about doing the right thing and building long-term relationships. A vulnerable customer who feels understood and respected is far less likely to fall into harm, and far more likely to trust your business. The message from regulators is unmistakable: “Clarity first. Consent second.” Only when a client truly understands a contract can we genuinely say they agree. By moving beyond the checkbox mentality and embracing accessible, informed signing practices, firms can meet their regulatory duties and ensure that every agreement is a fair one.

References:

Tags:

Post by Chris Fortune
Aug 5, 2025 12:00:00 AM

Chris is a co-founder of i agree, the platform designed to make contracts clear, fair, and enforceable. With a background in legal tech and SaaS, Chris has a track record of building user-centric products—including an e-signature solution used by over 4 million people. Passionate about transparency in agreements, he believes that if you can’t prove informed consent, your contract might not be worth the paper it’s written on.