I couldn't disagree more about it being a negative result for rule of law. It's important to keep in mind that the law is in no way endemically just and merely

I couldn't disagree more about it being a negative result for rule of law. It's important to keep in mind that the law is in no way endemically just and merely represents the political caste's codified consensus. Part of the legal branch's responsibility is weighing whether the law makes sense and whether it should be applied as written. Arguably in this case: no. What users are presented with aren't terms and services, it's oodles of legalese gibberish. The language is obtuse on purpose and not comprehensible unless you are a corporate lawyer yourself. To put it in programming terms: they have no accessibility and UX to speak of. That is fine for contracts between corporations, as they are negotiated and vetted by both parties' legal teams, resulting in a document that represents a give and take. If nothing else, it ensures endless work for the people that consider this stuff interesting. I don't believe regular consumers should be subjected to that nonsense, because there's an inherent imbalance in legal representation between the corporate "person" and the consumer's person, for one. That imbalance is in theory compensated for in consumer protection laws, which wouldn't need to be repeated in these T&Cs or EULAs. These types of agreements should be condensed to short paragraphs or even bullet points detailing what special agreements you enter into when using the service. If nothing else, to make it easier to filter the text for sections where it expects you to waive basic protections - which is at least unenforceable as far as I understand. We live in times where corporate compliance departments, the corporate lawyers they work with and corporate "rights" are taken way too seriously, with little to no regard for corporate responsibility or sociability. At the same time, there are a lot of talking heads claiming "the economy servers consumers' interests" and "the free market benefits all". De facto, these agreements aren't meant to be a bi-lateral agreement protecting both parties to the contract's interests. They're more often than not exclusively meant to cover corporate asses. Is that really a net benefit to society as a whole?