IANAL, but this feels like a good thing, that these issues are being hammered out in the courts. I think most people would find the idea that simply viewing a single webpage constitutes a contract with obligations to be unreasonable (as opposed to subscribing to a gaming service).

If publishers want to be explicit about forcing me to read/tldr and acknowledge a terms & conditions document, and then provide me with full transparency into what information is collected, and full agency over where else that information is transmitted, then yes, let us definitely engage in a contract. But the former destroys pageviews (a poor proxy for engagement anyway), and the latter will erode the massive grey-market in user-data and targeted advertising. From where I'm sitting, I don't think it's in publishers' best interests to shine a bright light on the current publisher/reader relationship.

However, as history shows, entrenched institutions have plenty of influence (cash) to transform a beneficial-to-them status-quo into "the law", e.g. when DVRs came out and programmatic commercial skipping was deemed to be illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping

Now might be a good time for some of us to donate to the EFF https://supporters.eff.org/donate