[WindyLakeReturn]

Something can be legally required but also have been originally made into a requirement as a dark pattern. The idea that something is legally defined as being 'conspicuous' in a way that makes it less conspicuous makes me consider that a dark pattern was the original intent. While I commonly hear to never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, I don't feel that is applicable to the legal system.

[Closi]

It's a legal document following precedent about contract law. Lawyers and the companies they represent are usually better served by following established legal precedent than veering off it.

Let's say the lawyers decide to be 'creative' and then bold the text instead, and then it gets copied into a page and some CSS renders it without bold text - suddenly the contract might have legal challenges, and the lawyers will rightly be asked why they decided to not follow established industry and legal norms.

I think it's a bit silly too, but if I was hiring an American lawyer I would want them to follow established norms rather than come up with their own unique and legally-untested interpretation of what is required.