A possible workaround - but not remotely one I expect them to do - is for them to amend their own terms of use to forbid themselves from expanding this feature without explicit opt-in consent, forbid themselves from making any expanded version mandatory to continue using the device with their software, contractually agree to liquidated damages in case of breach equal to three times the greater of original phone MSRP or actual purchase price plus included taxes/fees and inflation and interest and attorney/court fees, and remove their right to amend this provision without that same non-mandatory opt-in consent.

Again, I don't expect them to do this. But they could add a useful level of trust if they were really motivated to do so.

Then they could just change their ToS when they wanted to add more.

Not true. If they had previously adopted my suggestion in the old ToS, that itself would either be a breach of that ToS (leading to liability for prohibitively large contractual damages) or would be an invalid change. I suggested that they explicitly remove their right to make this kind of change unilaterally. Terms of Service don't have to allow their authors an unfettered unilateral right of amendment.

And what’s the recourse if a company breaks their own ToS? Also no company will give up any rights as they have no real way in knowing if the gov will come force more images to be added. What then?

The main recourse in practice with the arrangement I described would be a class action lawsuit alleging on breach of contract. I'm quite sure courts would have no problem with the lawsuit, assuming there were no arbitration clause or class action waiver.

As for no company giving up rights, I did say I didn't expect Apple to actually do this, only that they could. Though, companies do actually make binding contractual promises all the time. It's just that they don't tend to do it with consumers or small businesses who have no negotiating leverage and/or no desire to insist on those promises.

Regarding your hypothetical, anything that's actually legally mandated by the government generally overrides contract law since the courts won't enforce illegal contracts and illegality is a defense to breach of contract. They can always do what the law actually requires.

But we're not talking about the government mandating things, since both the iOS 14 behavior and the iOS 15 behavior comply with the law.

> Regarding your hypothetical, anything that's actually legally mandated by the government generally overrides contract law

Which means this action is just a charade, as I pointed out. Because fundamentally it doesn't really matter. The gov is going to do what they do, and Apple is not going to create a situation in which an external group can determine how or if they can be sued in court based on how overreaching they feel that day.

Also go check how many arbitration clauses exist in your ToS, just as an exercise. I'm all for banning arbitration clauses and allowing consumers recourse in actual courts. I don't believe we should have companies sign their death sentence prior to doing business, this raises the barrier to entry and results in even less competitors who have to do the same.