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.
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.
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.
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.
Crucially,
These features mean that instead of a simple signature,
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