Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.

What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses?

One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

> One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own.

That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it.

It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.

This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.

You don't have to license the software. Copyright law only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just because they say "this software is licensed, not sold" doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software makers themselves)

Contract law requires payment. What's the payment for acceptance of this eula?

No it does not. Contract law only requires a meeting of the minds between two parties. (Whether there is any meeting of the minds here is debatable)

A "meeting of the minds" or "intention" is one of the elements that is required for a valid contract. But it's not the only one. (For example if two guys sit in a room and say "let's order a pizza" that is not a contract even though it does express an intention.)

You also need:

- an offer

- acceptance of that offer

- some sort of consideration, i.e. some exchange of value

- capacity (i.e. you can't contract with someone who is incapable of consenting)

- legality ("lets steal a car" is not a valid contract)

IANAL, but as I understand it, the parent is correct. Specifically, in contracts it is known as "consideration"; Googling this even gets you,

> Consideration in contracts refers to the benefit each party receives in exchange for what it gives up in the contract. It is a vital element that must be present in a contract in order to make it legally binding on the parties.

(though ofc., Google is also not a lawyer.)

There is no consideration here. (The purchase of the product is separate, or at least, ought to be, if these terms weren't considered by the buyer then. Otherwise, it's just bait & switch.)

My point is that the contract could be unconscionable