I seem to recall some online lawyer saying that much of what's actually described in EULAs isn't strictly enforceable, simply because it is mentioned.

For example, a EULA might have buried in it that by agreeing, you will become their slave for the next 10 years of your life (or something equally ridiculous). Were it to actually go to court for "violating the agreement", it would be obvious that no rational person would ever actually agree to such an agreement.

It basically boiled down to a claim that the entire process of EULAs are (mostly) pointless because it's understood that no one reads them, but companies insist upon them because a false sense of protection, and the ability to threaten violators of (whatever activity) is better than nothing. A kind of "paper threat".

As it's coming back to me, I think one of the real world examples they used was something like this:

If you go to a golf course and see a sign that says, "The golf course is not responsible for damage to your car from golf balls." The sign is essentially meant as false deterrent - It's there to keep people from complaining by, "informing them of the risk", and make it seem official, so employees will insist it's true if anyone complains, but if you were actually to take it to court, the golf course might still be found culpable because they theoretically could have done something to prevent damage to customers cars and they were aware of the damage that could be caused.

Basically, just because a sign (or the EULA) says it, doesn't make it so.