Generative AI can now produce sophisticated business documents in seconds, which means work that once required considerable professional time can increasingly begin with a machine-generated draft that looks much like something prepared by a person. The same capability is making fraud harder to recognise because producing a convincing document is no longer a meaningful barrier for an attacker.
Entrust discovered that the number of digital document forgeries had increased by 244% from the previous year in 2024 and made up 57% of all document fraud, while Deloitte estimates that fraud losses in the United States caused by generative AI could reach $40 billion by 2027, as compared with $12.3 billion in 2023.
The problem becomes more serious at the moment of signature. Most digital signing systems are very good at showing that a particular file was signed and remained intact afterward. Still, that evidence becomes less reassuring if an organisation cannot establish who actually signed it.
A Valid Signature From The Wrong Signer
Electronic signing has mostly been developed with execution in mind. It functions on the basis that having access to a signing workflow is a good indication of identity. Still, more sophisticated methods of impersonation make it harder to justify that assumption.
Imagine a high-value agreement is sent to an executive for approval. The platform might correctly record the time when the document was completed and could safeguard the resulting file against being altered. However, such controls can still result in a detailed account of a fraudulent transaction should an impersonator obtain access.
The European eIDAS framework takes that distinction into account by providing different levels of assurance for electronic signatures; the Qualified Electronic Signature criterion involves a higher degree of proof of identity, and, as a result, the signature acquires the same legal effect as a handwritten one throughout the EU.
Organisations increasingly need to connect the act of signing to a person whose identity was established before execution.
Verification Needs To Happen Earlier
Identity checks are often treated as additional security for sensitive transactions, but AI-enabled fraud makes a stronger case for treating identity as part of the signing architecture itself.
The order is important because establishing a person’s identity before they carry out a significant document transaction produces evidence at the time of authorisation; when a signature is later in question, the organisation is not left having to figure out who was responsible for it afterward.
That is pushing identity verification deeper into the document workflow rather than leaving it as a separate check around the signature. Foxit, for example, has incorporated signer identity authentication into its e-signature offering, allowing organisations to apply additional verification when the circumstances of a transaction require greater assurance.
That does not mean every signature requires the highest level of verification. A stronger model is proportional, with greater consequences warranting stronger evidence of who is signing.
Europe Is Making Identity Part of the Transaction
Europe is moving this principle into shared infrastructure through the European Digital Identity Wallet framework, which EU member states are expected to make available by the end of 2026.
The wallet is intended to let people prove who they are using verified digital credentials rather than requiring each business to establish identity independently. Sweden’s BankID has already shown how verified identity can become part of ordinary digital transactions rather than a separate security step.
The consequences go beyond Europe. Companies providing services to customers in Europe can benefit from more stringent identity requirements through their procurement processes, and multinational organisations may find it easier to introduce a single standard throughout their various markets.
E-Signatures Have to Prove More
The next generation of signing technology will be judged less by how quickly someone can execute a document and more by what the platform can establish when that signature is challenged.
For buyers, the issue goes beyond that of whether the document can be securely signed. They also need to know how the signer’s identity was verified and whether that evidence will still be of use if the transaction is later in dispute.
Higher-assurance signing is therefore becoming increasingly important in people’s decisions when making a purchase. Since Foxit eSign offers Qualified Electronic Signatures together with other methods of identity authentication, this serves as an example of how the signing function can handle different levels of assurance without treating every transaction as carrying the same level of risk.
AI has made the appearance of authenticity much easier to manufacture. Digital signatures will continue to establish that an agreement was executed and preserved, but the verified identity behind the signature is increasingly what makes it credible.
