You can tell I'm European, but I think in this case, at the time when consumers accepted these conditions they might not have had any way of understanding the ramifications, so effectively there is no informed consent.

In other words, now that people have had a taste of it and know what they're actually consenting to, companies should have to get renewed consent (positive consent, that is) instead of relying on "you agreed to this before it was even a real thing".

It kind of comes down to the you can't put a "you sell your soul" clause in the terms and conditions of a coffee subscription service mentality: at what point do you simply say "this is obviously in bad faith" and declare it void rather than just say "it's silly, but you signed it".

And I think there's massive cultural differences regarding where that line is drawn.