This is a common misconception. I don't know about US law but in English law (including contract law) there is a well defined distinction between "wilful" and "

This is a common misconception. I don't know about US law but in English law (including contract law) there is a well defined distinction between "wilful" and "non-wilful" misconduct that rests upon whether a violation is intentional. Definitionally violating a contract or clause that you are ignorant of cannot be intentional. I know in the US the same concept of wilfulness is used in the context of tax law at the very least. tldr; in law ignorance is a defence, or at least a mitigating circumstance.