My impression is that courts generally do rule that these agreements are voluntary, because you can always just not do the thing with the shitty agreements atta

My impression is that courts generally do rule that these agreements are voluntary, because you can always just not do the thing with the shitty agreements attached to it, ergo they are not unconscionable nor adhesive. Hence my rant above; in TFA, Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the terms were voluntary. Otherwise stuff like binding arbitration would be effectively illegal. I can ask one of the lawyers if there are exceptions to this, that I'm not aware of. What I do know is that if some specific element of the agreement is unenforceable, usually the rest of the agreement remains unaffected and in-force. As for why, it's easy to blame the "judicial-industrial" complex and "judicial capture". I don't see another plausible explanation, but I am also not an expert. There might be arcane legal reasons for why things the way they are, beyond the "judges generally care more about businesses than people" hypothesis.