You have to agree to the retroactivity and the new changes.
The argument here is that he did when he made a ton of new pledges under the new agreement.
Even if the judiciary comes to its senses about the earlier purchaces, it's still a bait-and-switch for the later purchases. They can't claim that these were commodity purchases. Having spent a sum on one game, the next decision about where to spend on games is not a symmetric one.