I think I t would depend on the forum and choice-of-law provisions of the contract itself. If it were entirely under, say, the UK's jurisdiction, common law countries generally permit the nullification of a contract provision that is against public policy (I am an American lawyer, not a U.K. lawyer, and my practice area is not contracts, so take my only-slightly-educated guess with a grain of salt.)

Chances are good it says that any disputes are to be governed by the laws of, say, the State of California. Since California doesn't adopt EU law as its own public policy, it would be likely to enforce the contract (unless it violated California law in some way).

Note there's no such thing as UK jurisdiction, as there are three separate legal systems in the UK (English, Scottish, and Irish). But yes, all three would likely nullify the contract provision.

IANAL but in Roman Law countries - and just for the record - not necessarily applying to this case, there is the concept of contracts (or clauses in contracts) that can be deemed nullum ab initio and Quod nullum ab initio nullum producit effectum if they are against or contrasting any Law, i.e. ipso jure.

Pretty sure this is also in common-law countries: you cannot sell yourself into slavery even if you agree to with a contract.

Qualcomm already stopped paying Apple rebates, not because they are now using Intel chips, but because Apple gave false testimony about their contracts to regulators, which is in violation of their business agreement.