Your analysis reiterates the popular but fallacious motifs. The real issue is that people don't read the contracts they sign, so when they buy something they imagine that it will do all they expect and probably more from the time they buy until it falls apart. Then they're surprised when Samsung does something permitted by the contract. Then they get annoyed because they feel entitled to something that no one agreed to.

This seems to be a major stumbling block in the popular understanding of business: contracts, agreement, consent matters.

What you might be implying with the reference to the JWF is that there should be a ceiling for retail contract complexity. I'm just guessing, it's not really clear.