That's still fraud in most jurisdictions (although it's no longer provable unless there's a paper trail that says it's intentionally designed to deceive). Howev

That's still fraud in most jurisdictions (although it's no longer provable unless there's a paper trail that says it's intentionally designed to deceive). However, even if fraud can't be proven, it may no longer be a valid contract. A contract is the mutual understanding of an agreement, not the words printed on a piece of paper. The paper can be used as evidence of mutual understanding, but it's not incontrovertible evidence of that. Many kinds of evidence can go the other way, such as unconscionability (terms that there's no way anyone would willingly agree to, thus suggesting coercion or subterfuge). Or, framed another way: consent, in both a moral sense and a legal one, requires awareness from both parties of what you are consenting to. Each party is, to some extent, responsible for using the resources at their disposal to ensure they understand the contract (e.g. a blind person must find someone to read them the contract), but intentionally undermining the process of mutual understanding is at best very good evidence against enforcement of the contract and at worst fraud.