Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question. The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from m

Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question. The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from my Computer Ethics course and from some quick wiki-research[1], most cases revolve around whether the user made reasonably aware that they are agreeing to the contract, and if there is a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract and returning the product. I can't remember if my PS3 prompted me with a EULA when it first booted up, but it probably did. And I think the ability to return the product for a refund is considered a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract. So it may be legally sound and enforceable, and in that respect I agree. But it's common knowledge that the pattern of presenting a EULA with a submit button is not enough to make users read the terms of the agreement. Sony is using this fact to their advantage, as do most companies with restrictive EULAs. I'm against restrictive EULAs on principle, but particularly in the case of a physical good like a PS3 restricting you from using it, learning from it, modifying it, etc. [1] Relevant Wiki Articles on Short Notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap