> where they have a very human-understandable summary and some clickable (albeit relatively simple) legal writing underneath. OK, let's say someone relies on t

> where they have a very human-understandable summary and some clickable (albeit relatively simple) legal writing underneath. OK, let's say someone relies on the human-understandable summary and does something the legal writing forbids. Their understanding of the human-readable part is defensible, at least, but it obviously is not what the person who wrote it intended that part to mean; the legal writing, on the other hand, is constructed in a way that the courts have had a lot of experience interpreting, so it is, at least to a lawyer or a judge, perfectly clear and well-written. Obviously, if the plain language part and the legal language part are deliberately at odds, that's likely fraudulent and the court should construe the contract to the detriment of whoever wrote it. (This actually happens in real life to some extent.) But in this case, the difference in meaning is arguable at best and certainly not intentional. Which part did the person agree to? Which part should be enforced? Can't you just feel the judge's blood pressure rising? So, yes, there is a reason OSHA, banks, and Congress can't do that.