The signature is dead! What should you do about it?

What this blog contains:

• The Signature is Dead
• What the Courts are Actually Saying
• Why This Matters for Regulated Firms
• FCA Consumer Duty and Understanding
• SRA Guidance and Client Understanding
• Why “Sign Here” is the Wrong Moment
• What Better Looks Like
• Bringing It Back to Understanding

The Signature is Dead

The signature isn’t what it used to be. For generations, we’ve been trained to treat a signature as the magic moment of agreement – the final flourish that seals a deal. In movies and business deals alike, the pen hits the paper and everyone cheers. But in reality, that ritual has lost its meaning. A signed document, whether ink on paper or a digital “I agree” click, has become more formality than genuine understanding. In fact, studies show that an overwhelming majority of people (over 90%) consent to terms without ever reading them. That means most signatures represent a process (someone went through the motions) but not informed consent.

Think about your own experience: How often have you scrolled to the end of a long terms-and-conditions page and clicked “agree” just to get on with it? Most people have no idea what they’re actually signing. The signature has turned into a security blanket – businesses treat it as a shield (“you signed, so it’s on you now”), and consumers assume it gives them protection (“I signed, so the company must be accountable”). Both sides put far more faith in the signature than it deserves. A signature proves that a process was completed, not that anyone understood a word of what was in that process.

The uncomfortable truth is that a signature tells you almost nothing about whether someone actually understood what they agreed to. It’s a checkbox, not a cognitive event. As one industry commentator bluntly put it, an authentic signature or checkbox “says nothing” about actual comprehension – it’s merely a symbol of consent, not evidence of understanding. Declaring the “death” of the signature might sound provocative, but it captures a real problem: in today’s world, signing your name often means very little in terms of informed agreement.

What the Courts are Actually Saying

Courts are increasingly looking beyond the signature to decide what’s fair. This doesn’t mean that signatures are legally worthless – a signed contract is still generally binding. But judges have made it clear that just because a document was signed doesn’t automatically make every clause in it enforceable. The focus has shifted to fairness, clarity, and whether the person truly had a chance to understand the terms, not just whether they signed on the line.

Historically, contract law took a harsh view: over a century ago in L’Estrange v Graucob (1934), the court held that if you sign a contract, you’re bound by its terms whether you read it or not. That old rule still applies in many situations – but modern courts have introduced important exceptions in the name of fairness and informed consent. In plain English: if a term is buried, surprising, or especially harsh, a signature alone might not be enough to enforce it.

For example, UK judges have ruled that businesses cannot hide onerous clauses in the fine print and then say “well, you signed it, tough luck.” A famous case involved a gambling company (the “Betfred” case in 2021) that tried to refuse paying a £1.7 million jackpot by pointing to a clause deep in their online terms. The High Court slammed the company’s approach – the judge noted the clause was “opaque and difficult” to find and that it was almost impossible for a typical customer to know such a rule was there. In the end, the court tossed out the hidden clause and forced the company to pay, because simply having a player click “I agree” to pages of legalese did not mean they knowingly accepted that unfair term.

This trend isn’t limited to consumer bets or digital clicks. Even in business-to-business deals, judges expect clarity for unusual obligations. A recent High Court case in 2021 (Blu-Sky Solutions Ltd v Be Caring Ltd) dealt with a signed contract for telecom services that included a hefty cancellation fee tucked away in standard terms. The supplier claimed the client’s signature meant the fee was agreed. But the judge disagreed – he found the fee clause was “unduly onerous” and had been “cunningly concealed in the middle of a dense thicket” of text that no reasonable person would spot. Because the business hadn’t fairly drawn attention to this drastic term, the court ruled that the signature on the contract did not equate to informed consent to that particular clause. In fact, the judge refused to enforce the fee at all. The clear message: if something in a contract would shock or surprise the signer, you’d better highlight it boldly upfront. Hiding it behind a signature line won’t work.

Court after court has echoed this principle. They look at whether terms were properly brought to the person’s attention. Was that liability waiver on page 17 explained, or was the signer’s attention drawn to it? If not, the business may not be able to rely on it. If a term is especially unusual or burdensome, judges say the business should figuratively use a red flag or “red hand” to alert the customer – a reference to a famous opinion that said some clauses should be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to them if you want them to be binding. In short, the law is evolving to require actual notice and understanding of critical terms, not blind acceptance. Consent has to be informed, not just captured on a piece of paper.

The takeaway is not that signatures are now meaningless – but rather that a signature by itself isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for unfair or hidden terms. Courts care about the substance of agreement: Did the person genuinely agree knowing what they were agreeing to? If not, that signature might not save the deal. Businesses can no longer assume that a signed contract is iron-clad proof that the customer accepted every word. The question will be: did you make those words clear enough for a reasonable person to truly agree to them?

Why This Matters for Regulated Firms

For regulated industries, the shift away from “tick-box” compliance is especially critical. Sectors like financial services, insurance, legal services, and healthcare have strict oversight – and regulators in these fields are increasingly explicit: “We got a signature” is no longer a safe compliance strategy. In other words, just having a customer’s signature on a form isn’t proof that you did the right thing. Regulators expect more: evidence that the customer was treated fairly and actually understood what they signed up for.

This matters because many regulated firms have traditionally relied on box-ticking exercises to meet their legal duties. Think of banks or investment firms handing out massive disclosure documents and getting the client to sign a statement saying “I have read and understood everything.” In the past, that might have been enough to fend off liability – the firm could point to the signed acknowledgement if the client complained later. But that era is ending. Both the law and regulatory guidelines are moving away from pure disclosure and toward actual comprehension. The emphasis is on outcomes: Did the customer grasp the important information? Could they make an informed decision?

We can see this change in action with organizations like the UK’s Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS handles consumer complaints against financial firms, and it often sides with consumers when there’s a dispute about terms or fees that the person didn’t understand. It’s not uncommon for an ombudsman or regulator to tell a firm: “Show us not just that the customer signed, but that you took steps to ensure they understood.” If a firm can’t demonstrate that – if all they have is a signature on a confusing contract – they risk losing the complaint. In fact, recent data shows a significant portion of consumer complaints are being upheld simply because customers genuinely hadn’t understood what they agreed to, even if the paperwork was technically in order. In practice, that means firms have been required to refund charges or modify agreements, despite having the customer’s signature, because the customer’s lack of understanding made the deal feel unfair.

Put simply, the law is moving away from “paper compliance” and towards fairness and transparency. Regulators have caught up to what courts have been saying: just getting a signature or ticking a box isn’t good enough if the customer was left in the dark about crucial details. For a bank, insurer, or any regulated business, this shift is a loud warning. If your compliance checklist stops at obtaining a signed document, you’re exposed. You could face regulatory action for failing to treat customers fairly or for failing to ensure clients made informed choices. The new standard requires that customers not only receive information, but actually have a fighting chance to understand it. That means firms need to rethink their customer agreement process from the ground up. It’s not about collecting signatures anymore; it’s about building understanding.

FCA Consumer Duty and Understanding

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has made “consumer understanding” a core outcome of its new Consumer Duty. This is a prime example of regulators explicitly shifting from disclosure to comprehension. Under the FCA’s Consumer Duty (which became effective in 2023), firms must take reasonable steps to ensure that customers understand the products and services they sign up for. It’s not enough to hand over a stack of documents or a long PDF and call it a day. The Duty requires companies to support customer understanding at every stage – providing the right information, at the right time, and in a way that the average customer can actually grasp and use to make an informed decision.

What does this mean in practice? It means firms are expected to design their communications with clarity as the top priority. The rules explicitly call for information to be presented in a manner likely to be understood by the target customer group. If your target customers include everyday consumers (not just lawyers or finance PhDs), dumping legal jargon and technical terms on them will not meet the standard. The FCA has said that burying key details in lengthy terms and conditions, or using overly complex language, will count against a firm under the Consumer Duty. In fact, firms are encouraged to test their communications – for example, run readability tests or even customer focus groups – to see if people actually get the intended messages. If many customers are confused by a disclosure, that’s a red flag that needs fixing.

The Consumer Duty’s “consumer understanding” outcome essentially raises the bar from just disclosing information to making sure the information is effective. Firms are prompted to use techniques like layered disclosures and simplified explanations. A layered approach means giving a clear summary of the most important points up front (in plain language), and then providing more detail in appendices or secondary pages for those who want the nitty-gritty. The idea is to avoid overwhelming people with a wall of text. Instead, highlight the critical facts – the fees, the risks, the key terms – in a concise and clear way, so the customer can easily digest them. For more complex details, provide them in a way that’s accessible (say, FAQs or expandable sections online), rather than forcing every customer to wade through everything whether they need it or not.

The FCA has even suggested using diverse formats to boost understanding. Rather than solely relying on text, firms might incorporate visual aids, infographics, or short videos to explain complex concepts. For example, a fintech app might include a 2-minute video explaining how an investment product works and its risks, alongside the written terms. Different people learn in different ways – some absorb a diagram or a friendly video explanation much better than a dense paragraph. The regulator’s point is that firms should be proactive and creative in making sure their customers know what they’re getting into. Simply having the customer sign a disclosure form doesn’t prove you fulfilled your duty; being able to show that your average customer genuinely understands the product does.

All of this aligns with the broader theme: the bar is moving from disclosure to comprehension. The onus is now on businesses to communicate effectively, not just to disclose formally. Under Consumer Duty rules, a firm should be able to demonstrate, with evidence, that its customers are understanding the information provided. If, for instance, customers keep misunderstanding a particular term or are surprised by a certain fee, the FCA will expect the firm to notice that (through complaints or questions) and improve how that term or fee is explained. In summary, the Consumer Duty is pushing companies to ensure that “I agree” really means “I understand” – and to innovate in how they present information so that real understanding is achieved. Firms that embrace clearer summaries, plain language, and user-friendly formats will not only comply with the rules but likely see more trust and fewer disputes with their customers as a result.

SRA Guidance and Client Understanding

Lawyers, too, are being told that informed clients – not just signed retainer letters – are the goal. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which governs solicitors in England and Wales, emphasizes that professionals have a duty to make things clear to their clients. It’s not sufficient for a solicitor to hand a client a dense contract or terms of business and say “just read it carefully.” In fact, the SRA’s rules and guidance imply quite the opposite: if a client doesn’t understand the agreement or the advice given, that can represent a failing on the lawyer’s part in communication, not just a careless client.

SRA Principles require solicitors to act in clients’ best interests and to provide a proper standard of service – which inherently includes making sure the client is informed about important issues in their matter. For example, solicitors must explain the possible costs and outcomes of a case in a way the client can follow, and must obtain the client’s informed consent for certain decisions (like agreeing to a settlement, or accepting a certain fee structure). “Informed consent” here means the client has been given information in clear terms and understands the implications. The SRA has issued guidance in areas like cost disclosure and conflict of interest that explicitly uses the term “informed consent.” This implies that just because a client signed a client care letter or a fee agreement does not automatically prove the client knew what they were signing. The solicitor should be prepared to show evidence that they explained key terms or that the client’s questions were answered.

The legal profession is keenly aware of the risk if clients later claim “I didn’t really understand what I agreed to.” Such claims can lead to complaints, insurance claims for negligence, or disciplinary action. Consider a scenario: a client signs an agreement to a certain billing arrangement or a settlement, but later disputes it saying they felt rushed or confused and didn’t truly understand the trade-offs. If the matter ends up before the Legal Ombudsman or the SRA, the firm might be asked to demonstrate how they communicated with that client. Did they clearly outline the key points in plain English? Did they point out any unusual terms (like a success fee or an exclusion of liability) and get the client’s clear consent? If all the firm can show is a signature on a complex document, that might not be good enough evidence that the client was well-informed.

Recognizing this, many law firms are improving their client communications. Engagement letters now often come with a summary of key terms at the top, or a one-page explainer of “What this means for you.” Lawyers are encouraged to avoid unnecessary jargon when talking to clients and in written advice – or at least to explain the jargon when it’s unavoidable. The SRA’s guidance on client care letters (and general good practice from the Law Society) suggests that these letters should be clear, concise, and tailored to the client’s level of sophistication. If you hand a small-business client a 20-page engagement contract written for a legal textbook, you’re inviting trouble. Not only might the client not read it, but the lack of clarity could be held against you if a dispute arises.

Bottom line for lawyers: clarity isn’t just kind, it’s required. A solicitor’s job isn’t done when the client signs on the dotted line – it’s done when the client genuinely understands what they’re agreeing to and what is going to happen next. The best law firms now treat client understanding as a professional obligation. They document their explanations (for instance, noting in file that “we explained X risk to the client and they acknowledged understanding it”). That way, if later the client says “I was never told about this,” the firm has an audit trail to prove otherwise. This approach not only protects the client (who is less likely to agree to something they’ll regret), but also protects the firm from regulatory or legal fallout. The SRA’s stance can be summed up as: don’t hide behind a signed contract – ensure your client actually knows what they’re signing. It’s better for everyone.

Why “Sign Here” is the Wrong Moment

Imagine if we treated the act of signing as a mere formality, not the climax of the deal. In a truly customer-centric process, the important part happens before anyone picks up a pen (or clicks the button). The real “magic moment” should be when the person reaches understanding – that point where they say, “Okay, I get it, and I agree.” By the time they’re asked to sign here, everything significant should have already been explained, clarified, and digested. In an ideal world, the signature itself becomes almost boring: just a quick confirmation of what’s already clear, rather than a dramatic leap into the unknown.

All too often, however, businesses treat “sign here” as the finish line of a marathon – and only as the customer approaches this finish line do they suddenly dump a pile of information on them. Picture a sales process where the customer is given the full terms of the agreement at the very last minute, and then expected to sign immediately. If that moment – pen poised or mouse hovering over “Accept” – is the first time the person is really reading what they’re agreeing to, the process has already failed. They are likely skimming, or signing under implicit pressure, rather than truly understanding. It’s a bit like an exam where the student only gets to see the textbook as they’re writing their answers. Of course, the outcome won’t be great!

Good practice flips this around: the crucial moments are earlier, during the explanation and Q&A phase, not the signature capture. By the time a customer is presented with the contract or form to sign, they ideally should have no major questions left – because the key points were communicated in advance. The signature then is just a confirmation of agreement to those well-understood points. When “sign here” becomes a non-event, that’s a sign you did something right. Conversely, if the signing ceremony is full of surprises (“Wait, what does this clause mean?” or “I didn’t know about that fee!”), then it’s the wrong moment indeed – you’re too late. Those surprises should have been surfaced and addressed long before the document was put in front of the person.

In essence, the finish line needs to shift. The endpoint to strive for is shared understanding, not ink on paper. When you achieve shared understanding, the signature is just a footnote – a formality to record that understanding. Focusing on understanding means treating customers or clients as true partners in the agreement process, guiding them through the terms in digestible ways, and verifying their comprehension. If that work is done well, asking for the signature becomes almost an afterthought (“Of course I’ll sign – we already agreed on everything and I understand it”). And isn’t that a better outcome? It leads to fewer disputes, fewer cases of buyer’s remorse, and more trust. Companies and professionals who realize that “sign here” is the wrong moment to cram in all the fine print are redesigning their workflows so that education and clarity come first, and the pen comes last.

What Better Looks Like

If the current way of doing things is broken, what does a better agreement process look like? Fortunately, it’s not a mystery – consumer advocates, forward-thinking businesses, and even regulators have been painting a picture of a more effective approach. In a nutshell, it’s about building understanding step by step and documenting that journey, rather than relying on a one-shot signature. Here are some concrete elements of a better process:

• Clear summaries of key terms: At the start of an agreement, present a concise summary highlighting the most important terms – the things any reasonable person would want to know upfront. This might be a bullet-point list or a one-page overview that calls out the essentials (e.g. “Interest rate: X%, Loan term: 5 years, Early exit fee: £Y, Your main obligations: …”). By giving a snapshot of the deal, you ensure the signer isn’t blindsided by a critical term buried deep in the document.

• Plain English (and plain language translations): Write contracts and disclosures in simple, straightforward language that a non-expert can understand. Wherever possible, avoid legalese and technical jargon. If you must include an official term, consider adding a brief explanation in brackets or a glossary. The goal is that an average customer can read the key terms without a lawyer and still get the gist. Remember, clarity boosts trust – and it also reduces unintentional breaches because people know what they’re supposed to do.

• Opportunities for questions and discussion: A good agreement process is interactive, not one-way. Encourage customers to ask questions about anything they don’t understand. This could be as simple as a line in your communications: “Please ask us if anything isn’t clear – we’re here to help.” In a digital workflow, it could be a chat box or a “request a call” button before final signing. The point is to create space for clarification. When people ask questions, answer in clear, relatable terms and make note of those explanations. It shows engagement and ensures misunderstandings are resolved before commitment.

• Layered and modular information delivery: Don’t overwhelm people with every detail all at once. Use a layered approach: give the high-level points first (as mentioned in summaries), then allow the person to drill down into more detailed sections if they want to know more on a particular point. For example, an online contract could have collapsible sections or “read more” links for the dense stuff, while keeping the primary view user-friendly. This respects both types of readers – the skimmers see what they need to see, and the detail-oriented can still access the full text easily.

• Visual and multimedia aids: Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. Incorporating diagrams, flowcharts, or short videos to explain complex terms can significantly improve comprehension. If you’re explaining how an insurance deductible works, a simple diagram of a claim scenario might drive the point home better than a paragraph of text. Likewise, a 1-minute animation might explain the risks of an investment product more engagingly than a page of fine print. Different formats can cater to different learning styles, making it more likely that each customer will find an explanation that “clicks” for them.

• Evidence of understanding (not just receipt): A better process captures proof that the customer actually understood the key points. This doesn’t mean quizzing them like an exam, but it could involve simple confirmation steps. For instance, after a critical disclosure, ask the user to tick a box or answer a yes/no question: “I understand that this loan is secured on my home and I could lose my home if I do not keep up repayments.” This forces a moment of pause to acknowledge the risk. It also creates a record that the important points were not only shown but were actively confirmed by the customer. If a dispute arises later, you have a trail showing the customer was presented with and acknowledged each key element.

All of these measures are aimed at one thing: making sure that by the time someone actually agrees to a contract, they are making an informed agreement. A process like this turns the signature (or the click) into a true formality – basically just a timestamp on an understanding that’s already been built. It also has side benefits: customers who know what they’ve agreed to are less likely to be surprised or unhappy later, which means fewer complaints and disputes. Businesses that implement these steps often see increased customer satisfaction and loyalty, because transparency and respect for the customer’s understanding foster trust. Internally, teams spend less time firefighting misunderstandings and more time on productive work. In sum, “better” looks like designing every step of the contract journey with the end-user’s clarity in mind, rather than treating the contract as a dump-and-sign document.

Bringing It Back to Understanding

If there’s one theme that ties all of this together, it’s understanding over signatures. This isn’t just a feel-good mantra – it’s increasingly a legal and regulatory requirement. For instance, the FCA’s Consumer Duty (particularly the new rules around customer understanding) makes it abundantly clear that a signature or tick-box is an extremely weak tool if used alone. Section after section of that regulatory guidance stresses outcomes: did the customer comprehend the product, the costs, the restrictions? If the answer is “not really, but hey, they signed the contract,” then you are not compliant with the spirit (and likely the letter) of the new rules.

What does real compliance (and good business practice) look like in this new era? It means redesigning how agreements are presented, explained, and agreed to. It means investing in clearer communications and smarter processes rather than relying on boilerplate forms and blind signatures. The future of doing business isn’t about finding new ways to get a signature faster or more securely – it’s about finding ways to ensure mutual understanding. The companies that thrive will be those that can confidently say, “Our customers know what they signed up for,” and back that up with evidence. Regulators will reward it, courts will uphold it, and customers will appreciate it.

In practical terms, this might involve using modern tools and platforms that facilitate informed consent – systems that guide users through key terms step by step, perhaps with interactive explanations or even voice/video walkthroughs for complex agreements. (We can already see the early stages of this with solutions focusing on better contract design and even capturing audio-visual consent to important terms.) The point is, the solution isn’t a “better pen” or a fancier e-signature algorithm; the solution is a better process that puts human understanding front and center.

So, the next time you’re finalizing an agreement, remember that the real finish line is not the moment the customer signs their name. The finish line is the moment both sides truly understand and agree on the same thing. A signature without understanding is a paper shield that can crumble under scrutiny. But a deal where understanding has been built step by step – that’s solid. In the end, making sure “I agree” genuinely means “I understand” is not just about avoiding legal troubles; it’s about fostering a foundation of trust and transparency in every agreement. And that is where business relationships can truly thrive, long after the ink has dried.

References

• Informed Consent – Understanding Beyond Signatures (explains why a signature alone doesn’t guarantee informed agreement)
• The Context Contract (overview of capturing the decision-making context as part of contracts for better understanding)
• Better Understanding, Fewer Complaints and Disputes (how clear communication in agreements reduces customer disputes and complaints)
• Voice and Video Consent: The Future of Agreements (discussion of using audio/video as more robust proof of informed consent in agreements)
• Does Everyone Sign the Same Contract? Context Changes Everything. (blog on how each signer’s context and understanding can differ even with identical contract text)

• Deloitte study finds 91% of people consent to terms without reading (Business Insider – highlights how uncommon actual reading and understanding of contracts is)
• Green v Petfre (Betfred case, 2021) – High Court judgment where opaque, buried clauses were deemed unenforceable and the company was forced to honor the customer’s win (illustrating that “you signed the terms” wasn’t enough)
• Blu-Sky Solutions v Be Caring (2021) – High Court case voiding an onerous cancellation fee clause that was “cunningly concealed” in small print, reinforcing that unusual terms must be clearly flagged to be incorporated
• L’Estrange v Graucob (1934) – Classic case establishing that a signature binds a party to a contract (now tempered by modern fairness and notice principles)
• FCA & SRA joint statement on informed decisions (2026) – Regulators warn firms (in context of claims management) that clients must make informed decisions and understand what they sign, underscoring that multiple sign-ups and hidden terms won’t be tolerated
• FCA Policy Statement PS22/9 – Consumer Duty – Official FCA document detailing the new Consumer Duty, including the requirement for firms to support consumer understanding and take “all reasonable steps” to ensure communications are clear, fair, and not misleading