That's a great question. I'd expect that courts would not uphold claims to one's first-born child[0][1], but only because that sort of thing is already illegal (human trafficking). As for stuff that isn't illegal, I expect that YMMV.
That said, people actually "agreed" to give up/assign their first-born children with these "Click-wrap" agreements.
That people are so cavalier about such things should be a huge red flag for regulators to require not just a link to such terms, but that both parties should be required to demonstrate their specific understanding of terms and conditions before such a contract can be considered enforceable.
But that's not how US courts have interpreted this sort of thing. So, as always, Caveat Emptor!
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/nobody-reads-tos...
Edit: Fixed spacing.
Also says that any claim you make has to be made in some particular US court. WTF, this is a game I bought in Australia.
There were pages and pages of other legalese but those are the parts that I remember.
I was so angry after reading it that I haven't accepted it or been able to play the game (that I paid for) since.
What kind of bullshit is that? Changing the terms of something that I purchased six months earlier?
I wonder what would happen if I take it back to the store and ask for a refund because I can't accept the TOS.
[a]: The reason being: you checked a box acknowledging that you read them so you can’t claim you didn’t because then someone could read them, then claim they didn’t. It’s a terrible abuse of contract law, but it is unfortunately the world we live in if the legislature won’t fix it.