The problem is that that does not release you from your contractual obligation to pay every month. The company is still free to (and often does) send you to collections.
I'd argue that heavily lopsided TOS in favor of the company, that can be changed at any time by said company, and your access can be cut off unless you agree to the updated TOS, does not make a contractual obligation. In a B2C context, the business is the more sophisticated entity so it's up to them to make sure everyone knows what they are agreeing to. They could have put up a bold summary of "this is a yearly contract, you will be charged $79.99 to cancel, please type YEARLY CONTRACT in the box" somewhere in the signup flow. Had they done it, the case could be dismissed.
You mean this case? Why should that get it dismissed?
This is about abusive (and unlawful) business practices, not a lack of knowledge on the consumer's end. If the customer had full knowledge of the terms before agreeing it would still be unlawful, the law generally doesn't care that the two parties consented to an abusive business relationship.
Not just a mortgage or car loan. Credit checks[1] are being used by landlords to decide whether or not to allow you to rent. They are being used by employers to decide whether or not to hire you. They are being used by utility companies and insurance companies to decide whether or not to do business with you.
It's slowly getting to the point where a low credit score will bar you from participating in major areas of the economy.
Then it ruins your credit, and technically the three bureaus disallow "pay for delete" agreements between consumers and debt collectors which would get it off of your report entirely (some still do it).
