If you did read the fine print, and you were of a problem-solving (pessimist) mentality, then you would never buy anything or do anything. You certainly would never take any medicine, because nothing is scarier than the fine print there.
I wonder what the fine print on a Tesla self-driving purchase looks like...
Binding arbitration clauses and extremely vague/weaselly privacy policies are the most common. Refund policies that are dependent on information that is not available to you until after you make the purchase (such as the type of your plane ticket booked through an online agency). Et alia.
It's absolutely hilarious in the "ha ha isn't the world horrible" sense that anyone in a position of power would base legal decisions on the premise that consumers "voluntarily" enter into such agreements. It is voluntary only in the sense that the alternative is cultural/social deprivation and self-imposed exile from society. Participants in society are expected to be willing to connect to the Internet, board an airplane, etc. As it stands, entering into such an agreement is almost certainly done under duress and coercion. Any argument that consumers should "vote with their dollar" is meaningless, because there are essentially no alternatives.
To argue otherwise is to blatantly disregard the facts, to the point where it can only be done out of malice. Court justices are too intelligent and too well-educated for this to be considered a matter of ignorance.
In my opinion, the fact that the legal stuff tends to be written in fine print is almost irrelevant. People don't ignore it because it's small. If people had a real choice, they would read it anyway. The problem fundamentally is that people do not have any real choice. People don't read such agreements because they feel powerless, not because they are lazy.
I've never seen a Terms of Service or EULA that could be negotiated. Isn't that a fundamental attribute of a "voluntary" contract?
I can ask one of the lawyers if there are exceptions to this, that I'm not aware of.
What I do know is that if some specific element of the agreement is unenforceable, usually the rest of the agreement remains unaffected and in-force.
As for why, it's easy to blame the "judicial-industrial" complex and "judicial capture". I don't see another plausible explanation, but I am also not an expert. There might be arcane legal reasons for why things the way they are, beyond the "judges generally care more about businesses than people" hypothesis.