This is a really strange thing, because to me a Swede, that means that whatever has been signed is not a contract at all and is, well, who knows what.
To me a contract is an agreement. If it is not specific, then it is not a contract at all, and if it's changeable, then it's very obviously not a contract at all.
I've heard of more of this kind stuff with US healthcare, although I'm not sure I even want to understand the ideas there, but when people start messing up the basics of laws, refusing to rule that things which are obviously not contracts at all are not, or accepting other weirdness, then they start destroying the law itself, because people will try to build on these things and it'll become a completely arbitrary mess, where almost anything is suddenly allowed. I don't understand how US lawyers etc. could make this. One would imagine they'd want contract law to be a thing, but apparently not.
From my reading of the article the court agrees and said that's not valid, the actual ruling calls it `unconscionable`.
This sounds more like a scare people who don't know better from trying to enforce their rights, though I do think things like that should have some level of punishment.
However it is not a trivial problem. Different jurisdictions have different rules about what sort of things are allowed in a contract. It probably wouldn't be good if they needed different contracts in different states. (Although maybe being required to list the differences explicitly in contracts that are clearly intended for cross-US use would be good). Additionally you won't want to void a contract just because any little detail is unenforceable.
I think the issue's with differing laws is more or less covered by "knowingly".
A small company that gets a contract drafted up and uses it in a neighbouring state or something wouldn't really qualify as doing it "knowingly" by any reasonable sense of the word.
A company the size of TicketMaster who has undoubtedly already had lawyers from or familiar with multiple regions review and modify their contracts can damn well be considered "knowingly" doing this. And if they _didn't_ have any other lawyers look at it, well, I think we could call that willful ignorance ("negligence") and apply it anyway.
This really isn't far off of established law, either (at least to my layman understanding). This is more or less how most criminal laws work already. You have to have some sort of intent to commit the crime. Intent can be fulfilled by negligence/etc as well. (You didn't _try_ and do this, but you didn't take the level of care that would be expected so it was a foreseeable outcome of your actions and we're taking that as good as intent.)
Similar to those "not responsible for x" signs you see at stores, when they are 100% legally responsible for x, or those "stay back x distance" signs on large trucks on the highway to try and avoid responsibility for their unsecured loads causing damages.
Lawyers at this point are just trying to throw anything at the wall to see what sticks. Consumer protections are no more.