[EggsOnToast]

The only two words that are beyond what's taught in highschool in those quoted passages are "indemnify" and "pursuant" neither of which is actually too complex to understand from a cursory google search. The sentence structure is straightforward and it's grammatically clear that the parties listed are all part of the clause pertaining to who you agree to indemnify. The bulk of your argument is that it's unfair to expect people to have a basic level of reading comprehension for a transaction that's entirely voluntary on their part. I don't see the great crime against humanity you're trying to establish here.

[oxymoran]

While I legitimately enjoyed your pedantry, we both know that the point they were failing to make was that language seems overly broad in scope. Reading that first block, one could make a case that Moviepass could hold it’s users responsible for any and all claims made against it. Like if an upset movies studio sued them? Unlikely but plausible. I would expect this sort of language in an insurance policy, not a glorified coupon book.

[cyphar]

The thing that makes legalese prone to misinterpretation is not the complexity of the words or grammar used. It's that the interpretation of a paragraph is different for a lawyer (or court) than it is for a lay-person. Just because you understood all of the words doesn't mean you actually understood the text (this is of course ignoring how insanely over-the-top the quoted paragraphs are, and the length of the text itself).

When you go through a law degree you have several subjects dedicated to "learning how to read a legal document". If it just required high school literacy, why would you ask very intelligent people to go through a literacy course in university? Because there is more to reading a legal document (such as knowing precedents in contract law, how courts interpret certain conditions, what the agreement means in the context of any related laws, and so on) than just knowing what the words mean.