More from this creator
Other episodes by Liam Blaine.
More like this
If you liked this, try these.
Transcript
The full episode, in writing.
Most people never read the terms and conditions they agree to online. A 2019 Deloitte survey found that 91% of U.S. adults accept legal terms without reading them. Among people aged 18 to 34, that number climbs to 97%. This mass skipping of the fine print isn’t limited to the United States. In 2014, a Money Advice Service survey found that 84% of people don’t read the terms and conditions attached to financial products in the UK. The reason is practical: the average time required to read a typical set of online terms and conditions is about 1.5 hours. For most consumers, the inconvenience and time commitment outweigh any perceived benefit, so they simply click “agree” and move on.
In 2012, reports showed that only about 8% to 12% of users even glanced through these documents. By 2015, Intel Security reported that 63% of UK adults had no idea what personal information they might be sharing by accepting app terms and conditions without reading them. This widespread non-reading is so entrenched that it’s become fodder for commentary and pranks. In 2019, a travel insurance company buried a clause promising $10,000 to the first person who spotted it; 73 policies were sold before anyone claimed the prize, demonstrating just how rarely people investigate the details.
Legal experts and commentators have called terms and conditions “the most ignored documents on the internet.” Kurt Knutsson, a technology analyst, put it bluntly: “No one reads the fine print. No one’s going to read it.” The phenomenon isn’t new. The early 2000s saw major internet companies requiring users to accept online terms of service, and since then, ignoring the fine print has become a near-universal practice.
The core reason for this neglect is the combination of length and complexity. Among the 500 most-visited websites using “sign-in-wrap” agreements as of 2018, 70% featured average sentence lengths of over 25 words—a threshold experts say is too long for consumer readability. The median Flesch Reading Ease score for these documents was just 34, well below the score of 60 that’s considered readable for the average person. The median Flesch-Kincaid grade level was equivalent to 15 years of schooling; only 2 out of 500 agreements scored at or below the recommended 8th-grade level.
This complexity is not a new trend. A study of 260 mass market consumer software license agreements in both 2003 and 2010 found median Flesch Reading Ease scores holding steady at around 33, with word counts rising from a median of 1,152 words in 2003 to 1,354 by 2010. The range of lengths was staggering, with the longest stretching to over 13,000 words—nearly the length of a novella.
Critics say the legalistic language and sheer volume of these documents are deliberately designed to deter reading. Even when users do try to understand the terms, they often encounter unfamiliar legal concepts, dense paragraphs, and vague language. This creates a barrier to true informed consent, since most people lack the time, patience, or expertise to decode what they’re agreeing to.
The consequences for consumer rights are significant. Terms and conditions agreements outline the rules, responsibilities, and rights of both parties when using a digital service. They specify how user data can be collected, stored, and shared; what counts as acceptable behavior; payment terms; dispute resolution procedures; limitations of liability; and the process for changing or terminating the agreement. In 2014, a review of genetic testing companies’ policies found that 57 out of 71 firms had disclaimer clauses, 51 allowed themselves to change terms at will, and 31 required consumers to indemnify the company against certain claims. In the software world, 91% of mass market license agreements in 2010 disclaimed warranties of merchantability or fitness for purpose, and 92% disclaimed consequential or special damages.
Many agreements include automatic renewal clauses, leading to unexpected charges when subscriptions quietly roll over. Some require that users take disputes to arbitration in a specific city, or within a short window of time—barriers that can make it harder for consumers to seek redress. The imbalance of power is clear: companies can often change terms unilaterally, while users have little recourse except to stop using the service, which may not be practical for essential digital tools.
Not reading these terms has real-world consequences. Legal disputes and public controversies involving companies like AOL, Sony, Instagram, Zappos, and The Walt Disney Company have highlighted the stakes. In 1997, America Online revised its terms without notifying users, introducing a policy that gave marketing firms access to members’ telephone numbers. Only public outcry—sparked by a single user who noticed the change—forced AOL to address the backlash, but not before a surge of opt-outs flooded the system. In 2011, Sony sued George Hotz and others, claiming they’d breached the PlayStation Network terms of service. Instagram faced a major backlash in 2012 after quietly updating its rules to permit commercial use of user photos, without compensation or opt-out. Public pressure forced the company to backtrack and apologize after just one day.
The Zappos case in 2012 tested the limits of unilateral terms changes. A court ruled that Zappos.com’s attempt to enforce an arbitration clause—one the company could change at any time—was unenforceable, since users had no reasonable notice or way to assent to the updates. The Walt Disney Company used arbitration clauses from their My Disney Experience app and Disney+ terms in a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit in 2024, arguing that all disputes had to be handled through individual arbitration. The plaintiff’s legal team countered that these terms were “effectively invisible,” and that there was no meaningful consent. Disney eventually withdrew its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but not before public backlash and calls to boycott its services.
The debate over fairness and transparency in digital agreements is ongoing. The early 2000s marked the widespread adoption of online terms of service by major technology firms, but two decades later, the fundamental issues remain unresolved. Organizations like Terms of Service; Didn’t Read and TOSBack have attempted to bring greater transparency to users, rating companies’ policies and tracking changes. Art projects like Dima Yarovinsky’s “I Agree” have made the problem visible by printing out the full length of tech companies’ terms, covering entire gallery walls in paper.
The most recent accepted revision of Wikipedia’s article on terms of service, dated May 21, 2026, continues to document active lawsuits, new business practices, and ongoing regulatory efforts. Meanwhile, a 2025 Adobe survey found that 69% of consumers reported signing a contract without reading the contents, reinforcing the persistence of the skipped agreement phenomenon.