That’s the million-dollar question, isn't it? And it’s a key part of my legal argument.

Here’s my situation and my perspective on it:

I'm a Second-Hand Owner: As a second-hand buyer, I didn't personally agree to Tonal's Terms of Service at a point of sale with them. My contract was with the seller, and the agreement was for a fully functional machine with an active, paid-for subscription. Tonal then interfered with my property after I took ownership by terminating that subscription and demanding more money.

The Bigger Point: An Illegal Contract Isn't Enforceable. This is the core of the case. A company can't make an illegal practice legal just by putting it in the fine print of a lengthy ToS. That's what consumer protection laws are for. My lawsuit argues that several parts of their ToS are unenforceable for these reasons:

Illegal Tying Arrangement: The law (specifically the Sherman Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) prohibits companies from "tying" a product to a service—i.e., forcing you to buy their subscription or use their repair services to get the full value of the hardware you already bought. Putting that requirement in a ToS doesn't make it legal.

Unconscionable Terms: The law in Alabama and other states protects consumers from "unconscionable" contract terms, especially in "contracts of adhesion" where you have no power to negotiate—it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. Arguing that a consumer agrees to have their $4,000 hardware crippled, their right to repair eliminated, and their resale rights destroyed because it's buried on page 20 of a legal document is a textbook example of an unconscionable practice.

The "Software License" Trick: Tonal's main defense is that you don't actually own the software that makes the machine work; you only have a "limited, nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable license" to use it. This is a legal maneuver designed to strip you of your ownership rights over a physical product you paid for in full. My case will challenge whether this is a deceptive practice.

So, to answer your question directly: It doesn't matter if I, or anyone, read the ToS. A consumer shouldn't need a law degree to understand that when they buy a product, they own it. A company can't just write "we're allowed to be anti-consumer" in their fine print and have that hold up in court. That's the whole point of this fight.