I agree that it's unlikely to be legally enforceable, I'm also pretty sure some states are moving to make portions of contracts requiring consumers to waive cer

I agree that it's unlikely to be legally enforceable, I'm also pretty sure some states are moving to make portions of contracts requiring consumers to waive certain rights invalid. (Your example of being required to shoot a neighbor is clearly nonsense however). Until it's tested in court though we'll likely never know. I assume part of AT&T's rationale is that: A) They have the time & resources to argue then appeal this point for many years should any significant class action arise. B) It may be enough to discourage consumers from joining aclass action. In many class actions the only people to see significant money are the lawyers. Consumers usually receive something of nominal value and if AT&T were to highlight this cause it may be enough to persuade most people not to bother.