> Many of those provisions are unenforceable in the USA as well (it varies by state).

Good to know. I've been told otherwise... Wonder if this is documented somewhere.

> But there's no rule that says that boilerplate contracts can't contain intimidating-but-ineffectual language simply to discourage people.

Yeah, it sucks. Most customers aren't really familiar with law and yet they're forced to resolve these ambiguities. There's also the fact legal proceedings are extremely disruptive and costly for the average person but are routine for large companies. So even if they're unenforceable in court they can still force compliance by threatening to take people to court in the first place.

It's essentially bullying in my opinion.

A big part is (AFAIK) many of these contract clauses have never been fully tested in court, so companies leave them (why not, they are potentially effective, and not definitely illegal), and consumers don't want to be the trial case.