"Amazon wilt [sic]..." this typo in the putative official contract quoted here and in the OP actually makes me suspicious that this is a true cut and paste of an official contract. Lawyers are many things but typo-prone is not generally one of them.
I also noticed the numerous typos in the contract; a couple within a single clause here:
> if its (sic) a PC game made available for sale, I will submit it for sate (sic) on the Amazon platform
I don't know if that's really evidence it's not a genuine Amazon contract, though. It could be that this was typed up based on a hard copy or something like that.
It was originally shared on Twitter as an image[1], and that version doesn't appear to include any typos I can spot (the "wilt", "its", and "sate" typos are certainly missing). I'm assuming TechRaptor OCRed the image, and that introduced the errors.
OCRing it via https://www.onlineocr.net/ produces some similar typos ("if its a PC game made available for sate, I will submit it for sate on the Amazon platform"; "Amazon wilt not [...] Amazon wilt never be liable"), so I'm guessing this or a similar tool was used and not fully cleaned up.
Considering there are a number of other typos and `will' is used consistently everywhere else in the document, I think `wilt' is an error. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen the word used in that way in a legal document (in America--no idea if it's more common in the UK or elsewhere).
