I feel like signatures are completely meaningless at this point. Applying a picture of someone's signature to a document they didn't sign is certainly shady, and I hope is found to be illegal. But I think we're pretty far gone on signatures being any sort of authentication mechanism. Already you can "e-sign" all sorts of legal documents with no verification of your identity whatsoever. (Meanwhile, one time my bank did check my signature when I was withdrawing what seems now like a tiny amount of money. They decided it didn't match, and then I had to submit a new signature sample before I could have my money. This was after showing them a driver's license, passport, and entering the PIN on my debit card in front of the clerk. Several years later, different bank, I wrote a check for $30,000 to a doctor by logging into my bank with an 8 character no-capital-letters-allowed password.)

I feel like the direction that the standard is going is that you are assumed to have signed something if you benefited from signing that document. So you can't slip through the cracks by not signing something, it's just assumed that you signed it now. This fake signature is just an acknowledgement that signatures are useless. "If we issued you insurance, you signed every form. Prove otherwise." And my feeling is they will probably prevail in court on that, because signatures died a long time ago.