Personally, this is what I detest the most. There's always a bit in the boilerplate that's akin to "you agree to everything here, even the unenforceable bits. If we're ever challenged on the unenforceable parts after the fact, you still agree to be bound by everything else here."
IA[very_much]NAL, but to me this always sounds like "We can and will stick whatever nonsense we want in this contract, whether the terms are illegal or not, and you will be bound by them for as long as we can get away with it. If you do ever discover the illegal bits, that doesn't void anything else (including any other illegal bits you haven't found yet!) and you can't sue us- you've given up that right and can only use a mediator from our approved list. May the odds be ever in your favor."
This is separable from the abusive nature of ToS of course.
That sounds like a good thing? Why should abusive illegal contracts be allowed to continue after the law has found them to be unacceptable?
It's one thing if the legislation is specifically targeting those contracts, quite another if the unintended consequence is much broader than you intend. It's easy enough to imagine legislators unintentionally invalidating basically all of a states employment contracts this way, for example.
> Signer agrees to become contract murderer unless pre-empted by local laws and regulations.
I'm over-exaggerating, and I get the value when it's prohibitively expensive to write a TOS when it's essentially impossible to pre-emptively vet the legality of all possible clauses internationally as laws constantly change. But if the clause I wrote is technically valid, then what's the point? Just write a short phrase saying "We're going to do whatever we like, unless it's prohibited by law. Accept? Y/N"