>a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. There's a difference between voiding a contract that no longer obligates people, and voiding a cont

>a judge could (and should) void that part of the contract. There's a difference between voiding a contract that no longer obligates people, and voiding a contract to make actions taken under it illegal. I'm not sure there's good precedent for the latter. >There isn't a contract between the adware scammers and e.g. Target or Wikipedia. They're not touching Wikipedia, they're running on the user's computer and manipulating their local served page of Wikipedia. I don't see why anyone else would have a case.