One of the big weaknesses of the current US legal system is that the cost of access leaves a huge opening to ask for the moon. Aside from the general question

One of the big weaknesses of the current US legal system is that the cost of access leaves a huge opening to ask for the moon. Aside from the general question "is a clickwrap EULA or ToS enforcable" there are a million tiny questions about specific clauses and terms in the 30-page contracts that are stapled to everything in sight these days. Many of them will never be litigated through, because the damages may be small or difficult to quantify, and either self-financing a case or finding a lawyer who's willing to take it on contingency or build a class-action may be difficult. I also wonder how often the mere threat of legal action is used as a bludgeon, even if a fully played-out and fair trial would show the threat to be based on unenforcable terms. (i. e. using non-disclosure clauses to try to hide malfeasance) Easier just to back down than to spend the next five years and six figures trying to defend yourself in court. We have a strangely quaint 18th-century model of "contracts made between parties of roughly equal negotiating power and legal knowledge". I'm not sure it makes sense to apply to companies that have spent dozens of man-years with retained lawyers to refine their contracts, then dump them in front of consumers whose legal training consists of the Saturday afternoon Law & Order marathon on channel 51. Yes, there are some escape hatches built into the system, but every time I see "our terms of service have changed" I know I'm getting reamed somewhere or somehow.