I'm very hesitant to use this word, but this is a very privileged position. Many customers don't have the skills to even see the technical problem while expecting that not to happen. The same goes for reinstalling the machine (or they don't trust in their skills).
Grandma just bought her laptop from the fine folks at Best Buy. They obviously know best, and why would the sell her a computer in less the pristine condition? It's fine as is, she doesn't know to or have to pay someone to fix something that should be ok.
Do we stop allowing home loans because the majority of those signing them honestly don't most of those clauses? Do we ban cell phone contracts because only 1 in 100 even read what they are signing?
I think that it is a very life altering precedent to say we ban adults from consenting to things because they don't know what they are consenting to. Maybe one that is needed, but it would be far reaching if consistently applied.
In EU we do have laws that make unreasonable contracts unlawful. This sits with "buyer beware". A buyer should take efforts to learn about the contract they're entering into, but supplier can't hide onerous terms deep in a complex contract and say that they warned the buyer.
> I think that it is a very life altering precedent to say we ban adults from consenting to things because they don't know what they are consenting to.
We already have this in "informed consent" - the permission a patient gives for medical intervention. The consent has to be voluntary and made after being informed - in a way the patient can understand - about the risks and potential harms as well as the benefits.
We also (at least, in England) have regulated advertising ("legal, decent, honest, and truthful") and strict consumer protection laws.
> I think that it is a very life altering precedent to say we ban adults from consenting to things because they don't know what they are consenting to.
Just going off your examples, I don't think it would be unreasonable to require both parties entering into a contract to understand what they are agreeing to. I'd say anything else is unethical, really.
This is standard in the EU and I think that is a good thing.
Full contractual freedom is a B2B thing here.
And yes, having people sign that their communication will be monitored is an unreasonable thing in my opinion, cutting to the core of constitutional rights e.g. in Germany.
While we are at that, Germany has a constitutional right of privacy in your place of living - which is in an interesting juxtaposition to devices listening to what happens in your living room and sending it somewhere.
And finally, there is a non-negligible part of the population that cannot grasp those contracts - expecting them to keep track of all the things they signed in their life is an extreme burden.
