Originally Posted by Lomar
Or let's put this a different way. There are undoubtedly provisions in our ToU, and in the ToU of pretty much every game or online service company, that strike you as unfair. It's not the whole document, but there's a thing here, and a thing there. If Lochner were still good law... it would be considerably worse. :P
It basically gives freedom in extreme circumstances to avoid being tied down in court--
A popular example is a consumer Internet Service Provider agreement: it basically says they can terminate your service for fun, at no penalty to them.
Why do they put that there? Well, if you're committing a crime using their service, they need to be able disengage it immediately, and not be held liable pending the outcome of a criminal trial.
"Service Level Agreements" between companies are worded differently, as a termination of internet access without cause would cause profit loss.
That's probably still pretty vague, but hopefully it gives a rough idea of why user agreements are usually worded as "we can do anything", even if they company wouldn't normally choose to do those things (so as to preserve customer faith in the company).
As for contracts being immune to judiciary oversight, that is completely incorrect-- contracts are not made in a vacuum, one person's "good" might result in a third party's "bad". It is the charge of the court to weigh the total effects, as well as the intent, and seek an optimum for all parties affected.
(Which is the charge of an arbiter as well.)
The law that Lochner ruled unconstitutional was actually in function suboptimal for bakers (and the general population) partly because it was a time limitation on an activity not hardlocked to time-dependence.
(As a very very brief explanation: "The law doesn't really, in essence, do what the makers want it to do.")
It is the effort of the courts to apply the law in a way consistent with its intent, and as well consider overarching and perhaps previously unforeseen effects.