Customers should have the legal footing to negotiate every line in every contract with someone holding the status to negotiate on behalf of the company. If I can't negotiate my cell phone contact I'm placed in an impossible scenario where I either agree under duress or endure the impossible life of someone that refuses to sign contracts. Essentially, there are 4-6 contracts I'm capable of negotiating in my life out of tens of thousands I've agreed to under duress. Those 4-6 are: apartment lease (keep the Wi-Fi take off $50), groundskeeping (days, times, work to be done, breachs), trash (when, where). These negotiations are only possible because these companies have sole proprietors who will get on the phone to keep a customer. Let's move every company closer to this model by requiring every contract to be negotiable or, if online, optout no guarantees, no warranty, no liability, no tracking except for carefully and explicitly outlined exceptions.

> The chaos it would cause for US B2C businesses would be large.

Literally who cares? Let them deal with it. It doesn't matter how much money they lose. They should have considered the consequences of abusing people's trust and violating their privacy under questionable consent.

Corporations are vastly more powerful compared to individuals. Courts obviously need to favor the latter in the vast majority of cases. To do otherwise is injustice.

It was not a value judgement, just a prediction. Some judges do look at the impact of a ruling. I personally don't think they should be legally binding (as I suspect most HN readers do).

"doesn't matter how much money they lose" -- of course it does, these companies employ people and generate lots of government revenue (even if they skirt corporate taxes).

> these companies employ people and generate lots of government revenue (even if they skirt corporate taxes).

There are political and economic concerns, not judicial. The fact the company is important does nothing to remedy the fact that it exfiltrated private information to foreign intelligence agencies.

And if they fold due to privacy violations, another company will usually take their place.

> This alone may sway the courts to make them binding.

I'm afraid you are correct, but hasn't the whole system collapsed if:

- Is this good for our businesses?

is is part of your consideration when you are trying to find out if something is illegal or not?

The often are non-binding. Read up on "contracts of adhesion". Business doesn't fall apart because at the end of the day it mostly doesn't matter if you obey TOS. This has nothing to do with privacy though, since there's (in most cases) no law against what the companies are doing with the day.