One-sided EULAs dealt a blow

In a unanimous ruling, the Washington Supreme Court has affirmed that AT&T's service terms are "unconscionable." What that means is that the terms are such that no reasonable person would agree to them should they be aware of their full scope. The case came about when a customer who signed up for AT&T's long distance service was billed a monthly utility tax specific to the city of Wenatchee, even though the man himself lives outside the above-mentioned city. The man took AT&T to task by alleging violations of Washington's consumer-protection laws [1], triggering a string of events that resulted in the court ruling that the contract to be invalid in its entirety. Though the issues in this case apply only to the Washington State, and also rely on Washington's Consumer Protection Act, perhaps this could mark the beginning of the end of restrictive, one-sided service agreements.

For more on this legal case:
- check out this Ars Technica article [2]