Good catch! It looks like the New York case does indeed have some relevance as well considering the code explicitly allows state's attorneys general to file suit using this statute. Because it did not proceed to the higher courts(that I know of) it is not of great significance, but still noteworthy.
I don't think People v. Network Associates (the McAfee case, 758 N.Y.S.2d 466 (2003)) is on point. That case involved a number of complex facts, like a difference between the license agreement (which did not contain the restrictive terms and contained an "entire agreement" clause) and the warning printed on the media; and whether consumers could be misled by the warning on the media.
The court did not hold that restrictions in license agreements were void due to public policy. Rather, it held that Network Associates could not bind customers to the language on the disks because the language deceived the customer.
