> what I believe should happen with abusive contracts is the courts should make them counter-enforceable. Meaning, all the rights and dignities the signature-de

> what I believe should happen with abusive contracts is the courts should make them counter-enforceable. Meaning, all the rights and dignities the signature-demander wanted me to forfeit to them, and all the obligations and basic liability the signature-demander wanted to be exempt from, are turned around 180 degrees. This is a terrible idea because it presumes both sides of the contract are equally valuable to both sides. You know how much it's worth to me that Lyft will have to enter arbitration if they want to sue me? Nothing, because there are very few courses of life where Lyft ends up suing me Likewise with any privacy terms. I don't have any spyware installed on their computers, and no sane judge is going to grant you authority to randomly distribute crapware to Lyfts computers. Lyfts terms are of no use to me, and me having them isn't a real risk to them. Likewise with the prenup. The prenup isn't useful to her, and her having one doesn't threaten him. In both cases, the problem for the contract writer is that their end is now void. If you want to penalize them, fine them. If you're not happy with how paltry fines have been, base them on % revenue like Europe and remove a lot of the judicial discretion.