Frankly that should make it entirely unenforceable. I’m very confused by the judges choice here, other than “it’s too hard and it’s easier to apply it here” which is a pretty crappy standard.

He made some purchases on the old ToS and some on the newer ToS. So he did agree to forced arbitration on the bulk of his transactions. That's not saying that the first transactions should be grouped in (or that forced arbitration should ever happen) but this isn't just a company changing the ToS later without him ever agreeing.

1.Sell some products where price is mentioned in ToS.

2.Change price.

3.Sell some more products.

4.Send lawyers to collect diff on product sold in [1].

The question is, was he made aware, that his previous agreement will be changed when he was giving some more money?

>The question is, was he made aware, that his previous agreement will be changed when he was giving some more money?

Any new pledge could easily have a little tickbox "I've read and understood the terms & conditions", I'm not sure if Kickstarter has one but I've seen such boxes pop up everywhere.

The simple solution is we need to ban all ToSs and EULAs. Make it a crime to try to enforce them on users, one that results in mandatory prison time (else companies will still use them to scare consumers, same as the warranty void if removed stickers).

We need a library of standard contract terms (so that every time you buy a thing you don't need to read a new contract, and to prevent shafting either side on the deals).

We also need those contracts to be much simpler. A single page of large font in language simple enough for a grade school graduate to understand what's supposed to happen.

But that would be s-s-socialism!!

EULAs are already not legal in Europe, so they're halfway there. You could always move there!

Where does that come from?

Yes, a few rights are better protected then in the US (at least if you haven't written the EULA in the right way), but I'm pretty sure they are generally legal and enforced.

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.

That's not true, because the new TOS plainly states that it does not apply to transactions made before the new TOS went into effect.

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.