I wonder if you could argue that it isn't "strictly necessary" after a certain point though. Does ToS abuse by minors in this way really predict fraud 15 years

I wonder if you could argue that it isn't "strictly necessary" after a certain point though. Does ToS abuse by minors in this way really predict fraud 15 years later? If the SNR of a signal decays over time, at a certain point do the interests of liberty exceed the interests of preventing fraud? I have absolutely no idea and am not a lawyer, it just seems to me that the word "strictly" is meant to indicate that it isn't pixie dust companies can sprinkle on any piece of information as they choose. The rest of the language here seems to stress that there has to be some sort of test which demonstrates that the interests of the controller overrides the interest of the data subject.