I found the linked Register.com vs Verio case [1] very interesting, because the courts actually made a more nuanced decision on contracts of adhesion than typic

I found the linked Register.com vs Verio case [1] very interesting, because the courts actually made a more nuanced decision on contracts of adhesion than typically understood, I believe: In the case, Verio was calling Register's API for a purpose that Register disallowed. However, they only supplied the "contract" text that declared the restrictions after the call was made (as part of the API response I think). The court did in fact agree that this was too late: If you can only find out the terms and conditions for an API call by making that API call, then this is a "shrink-wrap agreement" and the terms are void. The restriction the court made on this was that it only applied to the first time they called the API: Verio has employees who can be expected to have common sense. So after having called the API for the first time, they had an opportunity to read the text and become aware of the restrictions. This meant that for all the subsequent API calls they made, Verio's staff was aware that they were doing something that Register explicitly forbid, but did so anyway - hence the court ruled that as "breach of contract". The important point here was that the courts never abandoned the principle that an individual must be aware of a contract's conditions before it can enter a contract - the case was just shooting down a situation where a party was pretending to be ignorant of the terms when they really weren't. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register.com_v._Verio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register.com_v._Verio