I am going to need a source for that. EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the con

I am going to need a source for that. EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them. That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service. In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved. Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms. This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use. EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements. Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law. The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms. But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement. Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all. Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software. You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder. That license is granted via a license agreement. Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.