Nobody is arguing against reusable, well-tested chunks of legal text!
The argument is that there are too many detailed requirements for typical consumers to reasonably agree to, and moreover they tend to be hidden away where users can't even find them anyway.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think Justice Stevens' objection that the text was too small actually misses the mark. What else are they going to do, have you mail an old-school SASE to an office, or go to some website?
The problem is that consumers don't actually have alternatives to agreeing to terms like this, so the assertion that consumers enter into these agreements "voluntarily" is flawed, because it's not voluntary if there are no alternatives.
The argument is that there are too many detailed requirements for typical consumers to reasonably agree to, and moreover they tend to be hidden away where users can't even find them anyway.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think Justice Stevens' objection that the text was too small actually misses the mark. What else are they going to do, have you mail an old-school SASE to an office, or go to some website?
The problem is that consumers don't actually have alternatives to agreeing to terms like this, so the assertion that consumers enter into these agreements "voluntarily" is flawed, because it's not voluntary if there are no alternatives.