[bluGill]

For those who can't be bothered to read wikipedia, this only applies when the courts can find you read it to the best of your ability and misunderstood it. Mostly it applies to those who can't read (either at all or the language of the contract) and so trusted someone else to tell them what it meant and they were deceived.

If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not understand it does the contract not apply.

[devney]

"If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands." That's the point, isn't it? Gideon v. Wainwright clearly established that no non-lawyer can be expected to win against a trained lawyer. Since BigCo has a team of trained lawyers making the EULA impossible to read, ... Well, Gideon didn't go this far, but if we extend the logic in that ruling, there's certainly a major precedent that nobody can be expected to understand the EULA, and thus it might be void.

[eitland]

I support this interpretation.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not their first language an even among those who know English well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a separate language.