> What I do expect and find important, and should be legally binding, is that no business should be allowed to hide the actual impact of purchases behind legalese and long-winded "financial product" descriptions, and then put the blame on the customer for not "reading through it".

And in general, as I pointed out here, such contracts tend to be invalid in court. However, signing a piece of paper in plain english certifying saying "I read it" when one did not ought to mean something.

A legal doctrine where one can not bother reading contracts and yet get them decided in favor of ones imaginary terms doesn't sound like a workable system. The whole point of written contracts is so there's a record of what the terms were and what was agreed upon.