> If someone does not understand or read the entirety of a (double-digit-pagecount-with-single-point-font) document that has been intentionally written as obtus

> If someone does not understand or read the entirety of a (double-digit-pagecount-with-single-point-font) document that has been intentionally written as obtuse as possible, is that document actually legally binding? Yup — at least if you're in the U.S.; I can't say as to other jurisdictions. (IAAL.) Indeed, in the U.S. it's close to an iron-clad rule: You're presumed to have read the contract you signed — and even if you didn't, with rare exceptions you're still stuck with its terms. > No "normal" people read or care about these kinds of documents, nor should they have to. Judges are starting to realize this, and react accordingly. In the U.S., historically that's been true only in an extraordinarily-narrow set of circumstances. Look up "unconscionability" and note the distinction between procedural and substantive unconscionability [0]. I've seen no evidence of any general trend otherwise. In summary: (A) RTFC. (B) "Ought to be" ≠ "is." [0] See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability