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.
