For the local barristers on here, could having to read through 12 pages of old English mumbo jumbo be considered misleading or even slight fraud if the administering party counts on the "muddying of the waters" as a way to get more money out of people?
Say that the clause about auto renew in put in the very middle. Does anyone read every word? Like, realistically? Yes I know by the law you SHOULD. But does the person getting you to sign have any obligation to give you the highlights or at least things you may want to know that are potential show stoppers or have financial implications? I could just see under those kind of circumstances someone could reason that they were intentionally mislead or deceived for monetary gain.
And we know good and well these places do this stuff on purpose - not telling you key things, burying important details in pages of fine print, etc. They make this stuff so cumbersome and complicated for the sheer purpose of confusing people or having them not give a damn or suspect anything different than what they've been told - resulting in more cash in their pockets. Could the intent to mislead be something that is illegal or at least carefully regulated?
The "I did not say it was auto renew but I also didn't say it wasn't, I just didn't say anything" - doesn't pass the mustard to me and has deceptive practice all over it. And again, we've taken action as a society against much less deception.
I'm small govt in general but one of govts main basic duties it to protect citizens from evil things like these asshat companies. It becomes a consumer protection issue. We've done this same stuff to credit card companies, banks and loan sharks, even car companies with lemon laws. Not trying to go all Ralph Nader on that ass but just sayin.