Standard TOS contract anyone can use, and any variations need individual sign off and consent per point.
Sites would then need to decide how many variations to enact, knowing full well every extra one reduces signups.
Sites would then need to decide how many variations to enact, knowing full well every extra one reduces signups.
I'd rather have "ideological" bills that explicitly say companies can't take the piss, empowering judges to throw the book at them with liberal interpretations.
Note I'm not completely contrary to a legal intervention in the matter (the EULA concept must die); just that it makes more sense to put in law that companies must not take the piss, not that they can take the piss as long as they follow the letter of some standard form. Then they can absolutely follow with standard guidelines that are somewhat advisory, as a way to speed up enforcement; but it's important that the law establishes overall principles, so that it's more future-proof.
If I give you a software copy with non-standard license, courts here won't uphold such licenses if you don't point out it's non-standard and in what ways. Because the consumer can't be expected to read and understand every legal contract they have to sign. They aren't lawyers, after all.
Software development is the side where I'd expect the most slow-down (rather than EULAs) but if anything, I think standardisation removes friction from innovation — I'm much more likely to adopt your lib for example if you tell me it's MIT licensed rather than something you've written something a bespoke library for.
Similarly, imagine if a new start-up creates a new Alexa competitor, say — I'd much prefer if they said "we treat your personal data as standard, under this commons licence. Then, we also have some niche requirements that are A/B/C and this is how they explicitly work", rather than pages long TOS that I need to go through with a fine-tooth comb to see if anything has been snuck in.