Electronic signature tools like DocuSign, Adobe Sign and HelloSign have revolutionized contract workflows by turning pages into PDFs and replacing pen-and-paper with a quick checkbox or signature field. In a typical process, a contract is sent as an email link, the signer opens the document (often a multi-page PDF), scrolls to the bottom, and clicks to sign. This model is fast and legally valid – under UK law (the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and eIDAS), such e-signatures have the same effect as ink. Businesses in finance and legal services have widely adopted these tools for onboarding customers, closing deals and executing agreements, especially after the pandemic accelerated contactless processes. Indeed, industry reports predict that e-signature and agreement technologies will become even more embedded – expanding from simple signing into end-to-end digital workflows (for example, integrating real-time negotiation via video or chat).
However, speed comes at a cost. A checkbox or typed name shows that someone pressed “I agree,” but it doesn’t show whether the signer actually understood the contract. In reality, most people don’t read online terms. One study found over 90% of consumers accept terms without reading them, and an Adobe survey in 2025 reported 69% admitted signing contracts without knowing all the details. Two-thirds of those later uncovered unexpected clauses and fees, with 15% finding them downright “horrifying”. In practice, people often breeze past dense legal text on a screen – trusting the brand or just wanting to get on with the product – so they treat the e-sign step as a formality. This “tick-box” or “scroll-and-sign” behavior means millions of agreements are formed with virtually no understanding of their contents.
The real-world consequences of this gap can be severe. Regulators and courts are increasingly warning that a signature isn’t enough if the signer didn’t comprehend the terms. Complaints, disputes and even legal actions can follow: for example, customers who later realized hidden fees or onerous clauses may demand refunds or report firms to regulators. Firms face regulatory breaches (if poor disclosure violates rules), damage to reputation (loss of trust with clients), and costly disputes or litigation. In the legal sector, failure to explain key terms can even break conduct rules – the Belsner v Cam case confirmed that a signed fee agreement was void for lack of informed consent. Similarly, the FCA notes that misunderstandings of financial products often lead to poor outcomes and consumer harm.
Legal and financial authorities now make it clear that consent alone isn’t enough – it must be informed. The UK Financial Conduct Authority’s new Consumer Duty explicitly requires firms to ensure customers actually understand their products, not just receive a pile of documents. The FCA guidance stresses that information must be presented “in a way they can understand” and not hidden in fine print. Similarly, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) tells lawyers to give clients information in language they can grasp. The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) enforces consumer law that clauses tucked into dense terms may be ruled unfair and unenforceable. In data protection, GDPR requires consent to be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous” – a standard that mere e-sign clicking does not guarantee.
In other words, UK regulators have shifted focus from processes to outcomes: they now expect firms to prove customers understood key information. A long PDF with a signature log no longer suffices as proof of consent. Firms must demonstrate that communications were clear, layered and timely so that customers could make informed choices. Indeed, courts are already reinforcing this trend. In Johnson v Firstrand (2024), the UK Court of Appeal struck down buried finance fees and held that hidden terms in fine print were unenforceable. The lesson is that regulators will treat clarity itself as compliance – making transparency and understanding non-negotiable parts of any valid agreement.
Given these shifts, companies are exploring new ways to capture true consent. One promising approach is to integrate voice and video consent directly into the agreement process. Instead of relying solely on a signature, the signer might record a brief audio clip or selfie video confirming they’ve heard a plain-English summary of the terms. UK contract law supports this: a binding agreement only requires offer, acceptance, consideration and intention – no handwritten signature is strictly required. Thus, a clear audio statement of “I’ve read and I agree” can be legally stronger than a quick click.
Voice and video consent offer several advantages. First, they are more human and transparent – hearing a person say “yes” or seeing them nod feels like a real conversation, not a faceless click. Second, they are more defensible in disputes. In financial services or legal settings, having a timestamped recording of the signer acknowledging each key point makes it much harder to claim misunderstanding. Finally, they align with how people already communicate: we text, record voice notes and shoot selfies every day. Requiring someone to read a 20-page PDF when they’re used to TikTok-length videos is outdated – voice/video meets the user in a familiar format.
Practically speaking, we can guide signers through a short interactive journey. For example, the platform can present a concise audio summary of fees and cancellation terms, then prompt the user to confirm or ask for clarification. One can use voice consent when a quick explanation and response are needed (e.g. reminding someone of a short notice period). Video consent can be used for high-value or complex cases, since seeing the person and their environment provides extra identity assurance. In each case, the system records a timestamped log of what was shown, read and said. This creates a complete audit trail of understanding – far beyond what a basic signature audit would show.
Another trend is humanizing the contract itself with plain-language summaries, multimedia and accessibility features. Rather than walls of legalese, agreements can be broken into short bullet points or FAQ-style explanations. For instance, every complex clause can be prefaced with a plain-English summary, or accompanied by a 1–2 minute explainer video. This layered, multimodal approach ensures key information is front and center. Industry best practices now recommend avoiding jargon, using short sentences, and offering the same content in multiple formats so different users can engage in their preferred way.
These design choices aren’t just nice-to-have; they are the very essence of fair, accessible agreements. They include clients with diverse needs (low literacy, neurodiversity, non-native speakers, vision/hearing issues) and often reduce errors. Studies show that clear, concise communication lowers customer support calls and complaints. For example, simplified wording and explanations can cut call center traffic by around 30% in regulated industries. Moreover, customers who feel respected by a transparent process are more loyal and likely to refer others – building trust that outweighs any short-term speed gained by rushing them through a click.
All these ideas come together in the next generation of digital agreement tools – exemplified by platforms like
In practice, this means firms can prove what was explained and what was understood. For example, in a consumer loan agreement, the system could log that the customer viewed the interest-rate explanation, answered a quick question about it (to self-test understanding), and then said “I understand these terms” on video. If ever challenged, this evidence is far more persuasive than a signed PDF.
Importantly,
What comes after “PDF plus checkbox”? The future points toward fully digital, intelligent agreements. Artificial intelligence tools are already being introduced to summarize key terms and highlight risks before someone signs. Blockchains and trusted logs can give extra security and auditability. More broadly, industry analysts expect the agreement process to consolidate around platforms that handle negotiation, identity verification, and contract lifecycle end-to-end. In practice, a company of the future might hold a live video negotiation session, automatically record highlights, then issue an interactive agreement for voice or video consent – all in one integrated flow. The Covid-era jump to remote business shows that consumers and regulators will accept these innovations as long as they prove understanding.
Of course, any new technology must be guided by the same principles. Even as tools evolve, the goal remains: ensure transparency and comprehension. As one recent
Internal references:
Sources