The idea that the incompetence of paywall implementers should be patched up by the law and consideration of clients' intent is worrying at best and honestly closer to insane.
If paywalls are implemented by covering page content with a white rectangle, will viewing source be considered unauthorised access?
If they are implemented by putting a large notice prohibiting unauthorised users from scrolling down, will such a notice stand up?
In both of these cases, the intent of the user viewing the content is clearly to bypass protection mechanisms that were put in place, but if such protections are implemented so incompetently, the burden (as it seems to be in real life, w.r.t. trespassing and similar laws) could well fall upon the consumer.
My suggestions get closer and closer to hyperbole but from a technical standpoint some of these 'protections' are scarcely distinguishable from some of the simple, meaningless protection schemes that have already been enough to trigger unauthorised access laws. :/