[rbanffy]

I believe cases like this hinge on the notion of informed consent (they were not informed the product is defective) and reasonable expectations (it's reasonable to expect that by now, after so many years, Microsoft would have learned how to make an operating system that does not destroy user data).

[mark212]

No they don't. Failure to read the entire agreement is not a defense. It's binding if you did some affirmative act (including using the product) after notice of the terms, even if it's only a link. Reasonable expectations mean nothing in this context. Will likely be sent to arbitration on an individual basis.

[tekklloneer]

If using every product requires reading a dozen pages (at the very least), then how do you expect to use literally any mobile phone you can buy in a store?

[tw04]

I could pretty easily counter with: it's reasonable to expect people to backup any files that are important enough to them they'd sue over it.

At the rate cheap spinning laptop hard drives fail, you are literally an idiot if you aren't backing up important files. It's not IF they will fail, it's when.

[tekklloneer]

Yeah, that's why I used consent. Consent is a messy topic that requires a best effort and careful deliberation. I definitely agree that EULAs like that are in a dangerous gray area.