I think the argument is that there are almost always conditions attached beyond just the cash purchase price, and you're supposed to evaluate those conditions a

I think the argument is that there are almost always conditions attached beyond just the cash purchase price, and you're supposed to evaluate those conditions as part of the price. When I bought my home, I didn't negotiate the price with the sellers, but I did negotiate which repairs were to be completed (at the sellers' expense) prior to closing. To be fair, a lot more thought and time and emotional turmoil goes into buying a house than a $10/mo SaaS. But the basic principles of contract law are pretty similar between the two. The difference being that when buying a house, the seller will generally entertain counter-offers; when buying a SaaS product, competitors are the ones expected to have alternative (maybe better, maybe worse) offer terms. My libertarian take on this is that we should encourage more competition, so that more companies will compete on the basis of being consumer-friendly. Making it harder for consumers to buy products (through more onerous requirements in order to "accept" a ToS) makes it harder for smaller companies (who don't employ lots of lawyers) to compete, and inevitably leads to malicious compliance by the bigger players (e.g. EU cookie banners).