Why Signatures Don’t Prove Intent (And What Does)

What this blog contains:

• Why a signature alone isn’t enough
• Intent to be bound in contracts
• What is informed consent?
• Proving intent beyond the click
• i agree's tools: audit trails, voice logs, summaries
• Conclusion

Why a signature alone isn’t enough

A signature or “I agree” click is only proof that someone performed an action – it isn’t evidence of what the signer actually understood or intended. In practice, most people don’t read long contracts: one study found that the average terms of service was so complex it took more than 14 years of education to comprehend, and only about 9% of adults fully read them In other words, the vast majority of users click “I agree” without really absorbing the content, which means a signature alone doesn’t guarantee true consent or understanding.

Most digital signing tools today simply layer a checkbox or digital signature over a static PDF. The platform may consider its job done when the signature is captured, but as regulators and advocates note, this approach ignores real accessibility and comprehension. In fact, one analysis of 500 websites found over 99% of user agreements were essentially unreadable to the average person This creates a gap: a signature cannot show that the signer actually saw the important terms, knew what they were agreeing to, or understood the implications In short, a signature proves agreement only if the signer meant it – but it doesn’t prove they were informed.

• Saw the key terms: A signature by itself doesn’t prove the signer even noticed the contract’s important points
• Understood the agreement: It doesn’t show the user understood technical clauses or risks – they could have signed under confusion.
• Was not coerced: It doesn’t prove the choice was made freely. For example, legal advice warns you not to sign anything you don’t understand

Intent to be bound in contracts

Legally, for a contract to exist there must be a “meeting of the minds” – each party must intend to be bound by the terms. A signature is the traditional proof of intent, but the law treats it as evidence, not a guarantee. For instance, the U.S. Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) defines an electronic signature as any electronic symbol attached to a record “executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign” In other words, the signer’s intent must be clear – e.g. by a deliberate click or drawn signature – for the signature to count. Even under UK/EU law (eIDAS/UK Electronic Communications Act), e-signatures are legally valid if the signer consents to electronic form, but again intent to sign is a key element

In practice, courts examine the context around a signature. They recognise that a lone signature is usually strong evidence of assent, but if surrounding evidence shows the signing wasn’t meant as a final agreement, the contract may not hold. For example, one court found that although signatures are “often dispositive evidence of an intent to be bound,” in that case the signature alone was not sufficient to prove a contract existed In short, the signer must genuinely intend the agreement; mere presence of a signature (or checkbox click) doesn’t override all other evidence.

Advice from contract law highlights this assumption: guides explain that by signing, you are taken to have “read the agreement, agree to its terms and conditions, [and] intend to enter into the agreement” But knowing that someone signed a form isn’t proof they actually believed or understood those statements. A clicked button or e-sig can’t by itself show why or how the person signed – that requires additional evidence.

What is informed consent?

Informed consent shifts the focus from mere agreement to true understanding. Rather than just capturing a signature, informed consent ensures that a person has been given the key information, has understood it, and is freely choosing to agree. By definition, someone giving informed consent has “seen the key terms, understood what they mean, had the opportunity to ask questions, [and] agreed with confidence” In medical ethics, it’s famously said that consent is “not just the signing of a form” but a thorough communication process A purely mechanical signature can’t capture this process.

Regulators and law are increasingly reflecting this distinction. For example, under GDPR consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous,” and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) now requires firms to ensure clients truly understand products The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) mandates that lawyers explain terms in ways clients can follow. In short, modern regulations demand evidence of understanding, not just a signed box. As one i-agree blog summarises: “A signature shows agreement. Informed consent shows understanding” This means simply having a person click “I agree” no longer suffices in many contexts – you must be able to prove they were actually informed.

Proving intent beyond the click

Given that a signature alone is weak proof of intent, the question becomes: how can we actually show intent and understanding? The answer lies in capturing a richer audit trail of the signing process. Instead of relying on a lone mark, modern consent flows can record what users saw and did before agreeing. For example, an e-signature system might log every click, scroll or video watched. This data shows how long a user spent on each section and whether they viewed key disclosures. Combined with identity checks, it creates strong evidence of who signed and when.

In fact, leading e-signature platforms now treat the audit trail as critical evidence. If a signature is challenged in court, the audit log (timestamps, IP address, actions taken) can prove the signature’s validity For instance, one industry resource notes that an e-signature audit trail “shows exactly who signed, when and where (via IP/device logs)” – making it easier to demonstrate the signer’s intent Ultimately, the more interaction data you have, the better you can show the signer was engaged and informed.

• Capture of Actions: A proper audit trail records every step in the process – which clauses the user opened, how long they spent, and the final click or signature time. This audit proof is tamper-evident
• Recorded Confirmation: Some systems even require the user to verbally confirm their consent. For example, i agree records the signer speaking a short script (saying “I agree, I have read and understood…”). This voice or video confirmation not only verifies identity (it’s like a biometric) but also leverages the “production effect”: speaking aloud improves memory and understanding The recorded audio/video plus metadata then forms a legally verifiable consent record
• Summaries and Explanations: Another approach is to force signers to review plain-language summaries of key clauses before signing. By presenting the core terms in easy language (and even requiring the user to acknowledge them), you document that the signer saw and (presumably) understood those points This might be done with bullet-point summaries, short explainer videos, or interactive quizzes. The goal is to prove that the signer actively engaged with the terms, not just clicked through.
• Opportunity to Ask Questions: Truly consent-first flows encourage the signer to ask questions. For example, i agree prompts recipients to query the sender if anything is unclear before giving final voice-confirmed consent This step helps catch misunderstandings in real time and shows regulators that the signer had a chance to clarify doubts.

i agree's tools: audit trails, voice logs, summaries

i agree is built on these principles of audit and consent. Its platform replaces the old scroll-and-sign routine with an interactive, consent-focused workflow For example, it provides plain English summaries of key terms so users don’t have to decipher dense legal text It includes optional video or audio explainers that highlight the main points, and it tracks exactly what content each user opened or watched. All of this is logged: every click, toggle, and confirmation is time-stamped to create a full trail

Crucially, i agree also records a spoken confirmation. The signer literally says out loud that they understand and accept the terms – this recording is stored in the audit trail Because the user actively speaks their consent, the platform not only collects evidence (voice record and timestamp) but also helps ensure the user is mentally present during signing. In research terms, speaking aloud helps anchor understanding The recorded voice, together with which summaries or questions the signer reviewed, becomes hard evidence that the signer intended to agree.

These features mean that instead of a simple signature, i agree produces verifiable consent data. Regulators and courts can see that the signer saw the right information at the right time, wasn’t confused or rushed, and expressly acknowledged it In other words, it provides the proof of intent and comprehension that a traditional signature never could. As one i-agree FAQ notes, this recorded confirmation “creates a verifiable audit trail that regulators and courts can rely on”

Conclusion

In an ideal world, a signature would mean that the person signing fully understood and intended the contract. But today’s reality is that a signature or checkbox click only shows someone took an action – it doesn’t tell us what they thought or knew. Courts and regulators are waking up to this fact: a signed contract might be legally binding, but true informed consent requires more. That’s why it is increasingly important to build consent flows that prove understanding, not just agreement.

By leveraging features like plain-language summaries, recorded explanations, and audit logs, we can bridge the intent gap. Platforms like i agree are pioneering this approach, showing that it is possible to make contracts not just signed, but understood. In a world of new regulations and higher standards, demonstrating intent through evidence (rather than assuming it from a signature) is how businesses can stay both compliant and customer-friendly. The era of the “just sign here” contract is ending – it’s being replaced by consent-first tools that truly verify a person’s intent and protect everyone involved.

Sources

• Adobe – Electronic signature laws (US): “a signer must show clear intent to sign an agreement electronically”
• Lexology (K&L Gates) – Delaware case: “signatures are often dispositive evidence of an intent to be bound, [but] in this case, the signature alone was not sufficient”
• Rocket Lawyer – What Signing a Contract Means: signing “means that you have read the agreement, agree to its terms… and intend to enter into the agreement”
• i agree blog – Electronic signatures vs informed consent: “legal validity is not the same as informed agreement. A signature confirms that someone has taken an action, not that they understood its meaning or implications” Under UK/EU law, e-signatures are binding if done properly
• i agree – Informed Consent (web page): Defines informed consent and emphasizes that “a signature shows agreement. Informed consent shows understanding,” listing key consent elements Notes that most people “click 'agree' or scribble a signature without really taking it in”
• i agree – Our Principles: Modern consent tools like video, voice, and summaries are needed, since “most digital contracts are just PDFs with a scribble or tickbox on top” Also: “we store verified, auditable consent, not scribbles” (no reliance on fragile signatures)
• i agree FAQs: Describes i agree as a “consent-first alternative” using “summaries, audio delivery, and recorded voice confirmations” Confirms that “recorded voice confirmation, alongside timestamps and summaries viewed, creates a verifiable audit trail that regulators and courts can rely on”
• i agree – Accessible contracts blog: Most e-sign platforms just digitize PDFs with scribble-signatures Studies show terms are too complex: only ~9% of adults read them fully “Most e-signature platforms focus on getting the signature, not on ensuring understanding”
• Citations to BlueInk: Electronic signature audit trails “show exactly who signed, when and where,” which is crucial evidence in disputes