Is it because it would harm adoption or because it's infeasible? You can download copyrighted images and use them for your own profit, copy github code with GPL code for your closed-source project, or sign pretty much any contract (say for a car or a house) without actually reading it. Just because there is no safeguard to ensure you are really read what you "agreed" to, doesn't mean it's unenforcable.
Moreover, the terms are very simple (1.5 pages) - hardly some "weird terms" to define how you are allowed to redistribute intellectual property.
Then they can sue. EULAs often state things that don't matter in the jurisdiction of the end user, yes. But copyright is not related to that. If they hold the copyright to the font, then they can set the rules in the license, and if those don't clash with the local laws of your place, then you're liable legally.
And yes, they probably won't do that. But that's, again, a different matter, other copyrighted works are also always stolen.
... says them. I don't agree and I don't confirm. I can download the font without accepting/consenting to whatever text they put on the web page. And if they're not ok with that - they can limit the availability of the download to only those who accept whatever weird terms they put in that PDF you mentioned. Except they won't do that, since that would harm adoption of their font.
More about this kind of "licenses":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract