I wish there was some law saying that a 'contract' like that is not valid if it has more than X words (e.g. 1,000), it's between a corporation and a person, and the corporation has not resonably established that the person has consulted legal advice. That would be a relatively unambiguous way to ban such one sided contracts.
The UK Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 [1] are reasonably good in this regard IMO. It gives effect to an EU directive, so most/all EU countries should have similar protection.
Summary of major provisions:
> s.8(1) - An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.
> s.5(1) - A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
> s.7(1) and s.7(2) - A written term must be in plain intelligible language. Any doubt is resolved in the customer's favour.
Unfortunately, no longer that much additional judicial scrutiny. The law used to view them suspiciously, since they didn't appear to really be bona fide contracts entered into by two parties who negotiated and agreed on terms. But as Justice Scalia's majority opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Conception (2011) argues, "the times in which consumer contracts were anything other than adhesive are long past", and courts now enforce them routinely, actually even striking down state-law attempts to treat them as anything but bona-fide contracts.
