I can’t see that defence standing up if it is brought before a judge. The law isn’t always about enforcement of smallprint technicalities in favour of the unscrupulous. Equity law exists.
I'm not a lawyer, but I assume Cricut had their own lawyers vet this and that it's well covered by their terms of service. I'd be surprised if a court reverses this. But public opinion might.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that putting something in your terms of service doesn't give you legal carte blanche to deceive people. The law understands that most people don't read the whole ToS before clicking "I agree". This doesn't mean a ToS has no legal effect, but it's supposed to be for clarifying details. Any obviously major conditions (like "We might make your device stop working at some point in future and you'll have to pay us to make it work again") usually need to be stated in plain language, not buried in section 8 paragraph 9 of legal waffle. This sort of thing is what equity law is for, and why judges are paid so much - they often have to make rulings on what is 'reasonable'.
I agree Cricut must have had their legal team vet this decision, but that does not mean they necessarily believe they'd have a watertight defence if taken to court over it. It just indicates they made a business calculation and decided it's a good risk/reward ratio. Not many disputes make it to court. For example (pure speculation): maybe their lawyers estimated a 90% chance that they make lots of money out of this scam, just giving a few refunds and apologies to the angriest customers; a 9% chance that a serious lawsuit emerges (in which case they can probably just backtrack on the whole thing at some small cost); and a 1% chance that they somehow end up in serious hot water with a regulator.