What makes a digital agreement “fair”? Clarity, not just clicks

Aug 13, 2025 12:00:00 AM

17 min read

An illustration of a person comparing a complex contract with a clear, simplified version, representing fairness and clarity in digital agreements.

Written on: Aug 13, 2025 12:00:00 AM

Read time: 17 min read

Written by: Chris Fortune

Tags : Accessibility e-signatures Informed Consent Understanding

What this blog contains:

What does “fair” mean in a contract?
Why clarity is key – perspectives from FCA, SRA, and CMA
Clicks vs. comprehension: the problem with digital consent
Clarity as compliance (and why it benefits you)
How to make your digital agreements fair and clear
Conclusion

What does “fair” mean in a contract?

We often assume that if someone clicks “I agree” or signs on the dotted line, the contract is valid and everything is fair. But in reality, a “fair” agreement means more than just getting a signature or a checkbox tick. In UK law, fairness in consumer contracts has a specific meaning: the terms must not create a significant imbalance to the consumer’s detriment, and they must be presented transparently. In plain English, a fair contract is one that doesn’t sneak in harsh surprises and that an average person can understand without a law degree. If important details are hidden in fine print or buried in legalese, can we really call the agreement fair? Probably not.

Under the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, businesses are required to use contract terms that are both transparent and fair when dealing with consumers. Transparency means the terms are written in plain, intelligible language (and legible, if in writing). Fairness means terms don’t tilt the deal too far in the company’s favor. For example, a term that allows a company to change prices without telling the customer would likely be considered unfair – especially if it’s hidden in page 12 of an online Terms and Conditions document. In fact, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which enforces consumer protection laws, has emphasized that a lack of clarity or prominence can make even a seemingly agreed term unenforceable. In other words, if a term is so obscure that the consumer would never notice it, the law might treat it as if the consumer never truly agreed to it.

So, a fair digital agreement is one that is clear about each party’s rights and obligations. Both sides should know what they’re getting and what they’re giving up. Fairness isn’t just a moral concept – it’s baked into UK law. And as we’ll see, regulators and courts are increasingly insisting that clarity is a key part of fairness.

Why clarity is key – perspectives from FCA, SRA, and CMA

Several UK regulators have made it clear (pun intended) that simply having a signed contract isn’t enough – the contract also needs to be understandable. Let’s look at what the major regulatory bodies expect when it comes to fairness and clarity in agreements:

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): The FCA oversees financial services and has long required firms to treat customers fairly. One of its fundamental principles is that communications with consumers must be clear, fair, and not misleading. This principle has been reinforced with the new Consumer Duty, which raises the bar for customer communications. Under the FCA’s Consumer Duty, companies must ensure customers actually understand the information they’re given – not just dump a pile of disclosures on them. It’s no longer enough to say “well, we sent them the terms.” The FCA explicitly expects firms to present information in a way that people can grasp and to highlight the key points. In fact, the FCA’s guidance warns firms to make sure important details are prominent and not lost in a sea of text. If a customer could click through a digital contract in 10 seconds without absorbing anything, that’s a red flag. The FCA wants to see evidence that customers are given the right information, at the right time, in a digestible form, so they can make an informed decision. In short, informed consent is the goal – not just a formality of obtaining a signature.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA): The SRA regulates lawyers in England and Wales, and it similarly stresses client understanding. The SRA Code of Conduct actually spells out that you must give clients information “in a way they can understand” and ensure they are in a position to make informed decisions about the services and options available to them. This means a solicitor can’t just hand a client a dense 20-page engagement letter full of jargon and assume everything is fine once it’s signed. If the client later says “I had no idea what I agreed to,” the solicitor could be in trouble. In fact, recent legal cases have driven this point home. A notable example was Belsner v Cam Legal Services (2022), where a law firm had a signed client agreement about fees, but the Court of Appeal decided that the client’s “consent” wasn’t truly informed. The firm hadn’t clearly explained a key term (in that case, that the client might recover much less in damages because of the firm’s fees). The court basically said: a signed contract wasn’t enough – the client needed the situation properly explained in plain language. Likewise, in Herbert v HH Law (2019), a court found that burying important fee terms in the fine print without making sure the client understood was unacceptable. The lesson for lawyers is that fairness requires transparency: your client should not be unknowingly agreeing to something. If you don’t bring a term to their attention and make sure they get it, it may not hold up later.

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA): The CMA’s concern is broader consumer protection, across all industries. After the Consumer Rights Act 2015 took effect, the CMA issued guidance (often called CMA37) on unfair contract terms. The message from the CMA is that a term can be ruled unfair if it’s not transparent or prominent enough. A consumer shouldn’t need a microscope and a law dictionary to figure out what they’re agreeing to. For example, if an online retailer’s service contract has a clause that allows the retailer to cancel the contract at will, but that clause is tucked away in a long paragraph of fine print, the CMA would likely say that’s not fair. The term wasn’t brought to the consumer’s attention in a clear way, so can you really argue the consumer agreed to it knowingly? The CMA guidance literally says that just putting a term in the contract isn’t sufficient if the consumer is unlikely to see it – “burying such a statement in the small print” doesn’t count as proper disclosure. Important terms (especially things like price, fees, penalties, auto-renewals, etc.) need to be up-front and obvious to an average customer. If they’re not, the business risks the term being unenforceable, or worse, facing regulatory action for unfair practices. The bottom line from the CMA: clarity and conspicuousness are not just nice-to-haves, they are requirements for consumer contracts.

Despite working in different domains, the FCA, SRA, and CMA are all singing a similar tune. They expect businesses to ensure that consumers or clients actually understand what they’re signing up to. In their eyes, a “fair” agreement is one where the person signing it has been dealt with openly and transparently. This is why we say clarity equals compliance – if your contracts are clear, you’re far more likely to meet these regulatory standards of fairness.

Clicks vs. comprehension: the problem with digital consent

Now, if clarity is so important, why do so many digital agreements remain notoriously hard to understand? One issue is the rise of “click-to-agree” and electronic signature tools. Digital workflows have made it incredibly easy to sign or accept agreements with a few quick clicks. But that convenience can come at the cost of comprehension. Just think about your own experience: how often have you scrolled to the bottom of a terms-of-service popup or an app’s license agreement and clicked “I agree” without reading a word? If your answer is “almost always,” you’re definitely not alone. Studies have found that an overwhelming majority of people don’t read the full terms before agreeing. One famous Deloitte study found that over 90% of consumers accept terms and conditions without reading them. And an Adobe survey in 2025 reported that 69% of consumers admitted to signing contracts despite not knowing all the details. In that survey, two-thirds of those people later discovered unexpected terms, and 15% said those surprises were downright “horrifying.” Clearly, the status quo for digital consent is not delivering understanding.

The reasons people don’t read are not hard to guess. Online contracts and documents are often excessively long, loaded with legal jargon, or presented in tiny font. On a phone or laptop screen, a wall of text is intimidating. Many users assume “it’s all standard stuff” or they trust the brand and just want to get on with using the service. Others feel they have no choice – if you need the product, you feel you must agree, so why bother reading something you wouldn’t even fully grasp? This is sometimes called the “tick-box” or “scroll-and-sign” problem. Digital signing has introduced a new kind of complacency: it feels so routine and quick that users treat it as a formality. In the past, signing a paper might have given you pause to at least skim it. But when you can virtually sign a 50-page document by doodling your initials once and clicking “Finish,” that pause often disappears. As a result, we have millions of agreements being formed with a click, and the signer has little to no idea what’s in them.

From a fairness perspective, this is a big issue. If people aren’t reading or understanding what they sign, can we truly say they consented in any meaningful way? Regulators are increasingly saying “no.” For instance, financial regulators have raised concerns that a quick digital signature doesn’t prove the customer understood the product’s terms or risks. The same goes in legal services – a client might e-sign an engagement letter but later complain, “I didn’t realize you would charge for X service,” and the regulator or ombudsman may sympathize if that term wasn’t made clear enough. There’s also the concern of vulnerable customers: think about people who have lower literacy, or aren’t tech-savvy, or have impairments. A dense digital contract is practically inaccessible to them, even though they might click “agree” because they feel they must. If a firm relies on that click alone, without any additional checks, they could be seen as taking advantage of the situation.

It’s worth noting that under traditional contract law, the courts have often enforced agreements even when one party didn’t read the terms (“you signed it, you’re bound by it” is the usual rule, barring fraud). However, even the courts are starting to acknowledge the reality that consent in the digital age can be pretty hollow. We’ve seen courts strike down or question terms that were hidden in the fine print or not adequately pointed out. For example, in a recent case involving car financing (the FirstRand Bank case in 2024), the Court of Appeal in the UK said that just having a statement about a commission in the contract wasn’t enough when it was buried in small print that the consumer was unlikely to read. In that situation, the judges effectively said: if you know customers probably won’t see something important, you have a duty to bring it to their attention. Simply tucking it in the T&Cs and relying on a click won’t shield you. So while the law still upholds contracts in general, the trend is towards greater scrutiny of how agreements are presented to people. A signature or an “I Agree” click alone is starting to look less bulletproof, especially if the person signing was kept in the dark about crucial points.

The “clicks vs. clarity” problem is exactly why i agree exists as a platform (and why we’re so passionate about this topic). Many e-signature tools focus on speeding up the signing process, without pausing to ask: does the signer actually understand what they just signed? As a result, businesses using those tools might be getting lots of contracts signed, but also planting the seeds for disputes and regulatory headaches down the line. If a client later says “I didn’t really know what I was agreeing to,” you might win a court battle by pointing to the signature, but you’ve still lost something – a good client relationship, time and money dealing with complaints, and perhaps some reputation. And if a regulator steps in, you might actually lose the battle if they decide your practices were unfair. Clearly, there’s a need to bridge this gap between formal consent and real understanding.

Clarity as compliance (and why it benefits you)

We’ve established that clarity is demanded by law and regulators – but let’s talk about the upside. Making your contracts clearer and fairer isn’t just about avoiding trouble; it can positively boost your business. First and foremost, yes, clear contracts keep you on the right side of compliance. If you ensure your customer actually knows what they’re signing, you’re far less likely to fall foul of the FCA’s rules or the CMA’s unfair terms enforcement. Think of it as an insurance policy: a clearly understood agreement is much harder to challenge. If a complaint does arise, you can show that you took steps to inform the customer (maybe you highlighted the key terms, provided summaries, answered their questions, etc.). That goes a long way with regulators, and even in court, in demonstrating that you acted fairly. It’s much better than just saying “well, they signed the contract” and shrugging. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Beyond satisfying the rulebooks, clarity dramatically reduces the risk of disputes and complaints. Confused clients are costly clients. When people understand what they’re agreeing to, there are fewer nasty surprises later on. That means fewer customers calling up angry about a charge they didn’t expect, fewer people feeling misled and demanding refunds, and fewer cases ending up with lawyers or ombudsmen. There’s data to back this up. In the legal services sector, a recent consumer panel survey found nearly 1 in 4 clients didn’t fully understand the service they received – that lack of understanding surely contributes to complaints when expectations aren’t met. In finance, the FCA has noted that poor consumer understanding of product terms often leads to poor outcomes, which then lead to complaints or remediation. On the flip side, companies that prioritize clear communication have observed tangible benefits like lower complaint rates and even lower customer support costs. (For example, one study in a regulated industry showed that simplifying and clarifying customer communications cut the calls to their support center by around 30%, because customers weren’t calling to clarify confusing terms!) Fewer disputes and inquiries mean lower administrative costs and less time wasted for your team.

There’s also a trust and loyalty angle. If a customer feels the agreement process was honest and clear, they’re more likely to trust you going forward. They don’t get the sense that you’re trying to trick them with “gotcha” clauses. Instead, they feel respected. That builds loyalty and goodwill. In contrast, if a customer only realizes some onerous term after the fact, they’ll not only be upset – they’ll also probably not want to do business with you again. They might even tell others not to. In the age of social media, one viral post about “this company’s shady contract terms” can do real damage to your brand. By having fair, transparent contracts, you demonstrate integrity, which is a selling point in itself.

Another benefit of clarity is internally within your organization. When your salespeople, account managers, or customer service reps know that the contract is straightforward, they can confidently explain it to clients without hesitation. It makes their job easier because they don’t have to hide behind “legal language” – everything is out in the open. This can lead to smoother sales processes and quicker deal closures, because clients have fewer objections or need for clarification. Think about it: if a client has to forward your 30-page contract to their lawyer for explanation, you’ve just introduced delay and friction. If instead you present a concise agreement where key terms are plainly stated (and maybe even accompanied by a one-page summary), the client might sign faster because they actually understand it on their own.

Finally, let’s consider compliance in the broader sense: it’s not just about avoiding penalties, it’s about doing right by your customers. Regulators like the FCA and SRA are pushing for clarity because they ultimately want better outcomes for consumers – fewer people getting into agreements they regret or don’t understand. By aligning with that goal, you’re also aligning your business with better customer outcomes. In the long run, that’s a more sustainable strategy. Companies that relied on confusing customers as a business model tend not to last (or they face regulatory reckoning). Companies that treat customers fairly can turn that into a competitive advantage. You can literally market transparency as a feature: “No hidden small print – we make sure you know what you’re signing.” Many customers will choose the provider that offers honesty and clarity over one that presents a maze of terms.

In sum, clarity isn’t just compliance for compliance’s sake. It’s about reducing risk, lowering costs, and building stronger customer relationships. Fair agreements are the foundation of positive, long-term business. When both you and your client know exactly where you stand from day one, you’ve set the stage for a smoother journey ahead.

How to make your digital agreements fair and clear

Achieving fairness and clarity in contracts may sound like a tall order, especially if you’re used to the traditional way of doing things. But it’s absolutely doable, and there are tools and techniques to help. Here are some practical ways to make your digital agreements more fair for everyone involved:

Use plain language: Wherever possible, replace legal jargon and convoluted sentences with simple, everyday language. You shouldn’t need a law degree to understand a contract. For example, instead of “heretofore the parties acknowledge and agree,” just say “both parties agree.” Simplifying language greatly improves comprehension.
Highlight the key points: Don’t let critical terms hide. Identify the most important things a signer needs to know – price/cost, commitment length, cancellation terms, major duties or risks – and make sure these stand out. You can use headings, bullet points, or call-out boxes for key terms. In a digital format, you might use design elements (like bold text or icons) to draw attention. The idea is that even a quick reader will not miss the big stuff.
Use summaries and layering: A very effective approach is to provide a short summary of each section or of the whole contract in plain English. For instance, at the top of a long document, have a “Need-to-Know Summary” with the five or ten essential points. Or break the document into sections, each with a one-sentence summary in simple terms. This is called layering information – the reader can grasp the basic points at a glance and drill into the full text if they want more detail. Many fair contract initiatives use this strategy, and regulators encourage it. A concise summary is not a replacement for the full terms, but it’s a roadmap that helps prevent misunderstanding.
Make it interactive (if possible): Digital agreements offer opportunities that paper can’t. For example, you can incorporate a short explainer video or audio clip for complex sections. Hearing a friendly voice explain a clause in 20 seconds can be much more digestible than reading a dense paragraph. You can also use pop-up definitions for certain terms (e.g., hover over a word like “indemnity” and a plain-language definition appears). Modern “informed consent” platforms like i agree employ these kinds of interactive features to promote understanding, rather than just speed.
Address different needs: A truly fair digital agreement should be accessible to people with varying needs. This includes providing options for those who might have visual or cognitive impairments, or those who just learn better through different media. For example, offering an audio narration of the contract can help visually impaired users or simply those who prefer listening. Ensuring the text is readable (proper font size, clear layout, no crazy all-caps sections) is part of this too. If your customer base includes non-native English speakers, consider providing translations or at least summaries in the other common languages. These steps show that you’re not just dumping text on the user – you’re actively helping them understand.
Create an audit trail of consent: From a compliance standpoint, it’s valuable to have evidence that you didn’t just get a signature, but that you took steps to inform the signer. Many advanced e-signature alternatives (like the i agree platform) will log user interactions: for example, how long they spent on each section, whether they watched the explanatory video, if they clicked on the FAQs or asked a question during the process, etc. This kind of audit trail can show that the person was engaged and had opportunity to understand. If later someone claims “I had no idea about X term,” you could actually document that they saw a summary of X term and affirmed it. This level of proof can be a lifesaver in disputes. It’s the difference between “he said, she said” and having a digital paper trail of informed consent.

Implementing these practices might require a shift in how your organization approaches contracts. It could mean collaborating with legal to rewrite templates in plainer language, or adopting a new contract tool built around fairness (for example, i agree itself was built by solicitors with exactly these compliance goals in mind). Change can be challenging, but it’s increasingly necessary. The good news is that these changes don’t just protect consumers – they can also streamline your processes. You might find that negotiation cycles shorten when contracts are clearer, or that customer sign-up rates improve because the process feels more user-friendly and trustworthy.

Remember, the goal is to move from a checkbox mentality to a true consent mentality. Instead of asking “How quickly can we get them to click agree?”, start asking “How can we ensure they really understand before they agree?”. That mindset shift is at the heart of fair digital agreements. And with regulators watching and consumers growing more conscious of their rights, it’s a timely shift to make.

Conclusion

In today’s digital world, it’s all too easy to reduce consent to a button click. But true agreement is more than a formality – it’s a meeting of minds. A digital contract isn’t really “fair” if one side has no clue what they just agreed to. UK regulators like the FCA, SRA, and CMA are driving home that point: they expect clarity, transparency, and actual understanding, not just electronic paper trails of acceptance. If your current contract process amounts to throwing a long document at a client and hoping for the best, it’s time to rethink that approach.

The encouraging news is that fairness and business performance go hand in hand. By making clarity your priority, you’re not only complying with the rules – you’re fostering trust. Clients who feel informed are more confident and happier. They’re less likely to come back with “I never knew this!” complaints. They’re more likely to stay with you and recommend you. In a sense, every fair contract is an investment in the client relationship.

At i agree, we’ve built our platform on the belief that informed consent isn’t a checkbox – it’s a responsibility. Our vision of fair contracts involves breaking down complex agreements into clear, understandable pieces and verifying that understanding along the way. We invite you to explore our FAQs or reach out to learn how you can implement these principles in your own organization. Whether you use a solution like ours or develop your own in-house protocols, the important thing is to put the client’s comprehension at the center of the process.

In the end, fairness in digital agreements comes down to a simple idea: clarity, not just clicks. A contract that both sides understand is the only kind of contract that deserves a confident “I agree.” By striving for that level of clarity, you’ll not only meet your legal obligations – you’ll also build a foundation of trust and transparency that is invaluable in the long run. And that is what fair agreements are all about.