Because the Russian Mafia is an external party to the transaction, while the large international company is the one selling the computer in the first place. As unfortunate as it may be, it's accepted as normal these days that discount consumer laptops will come bundled with crap software that the computer manufacturer was paid to install. This particular piece of software crossed the line, but it's a difference in degree, not kind.
This might just be my view, but I don't think it has ever been accepted as normal. It's simply that the sticker price fails to represent the actual price of the product, a common practice throughout history. Once, it was common practice for handymen, construction firms, and automotive repair shops to hide additional costs in contracts. That practice went away quite fast as soon as consumer protection laws required that the cost was upfront and known to the customer. We can also see the exact same pattern with banking and travel, where hidden fees and surcharges was common practice everywhere until companies was forced to start informing customers.
If Lenovo laptops informed the customer prior to sale, then this would be a trade. They could have told the customer about the additional advertisement they would show on the sold device, how much they would earn, what private data they would transfer away from the device and sell. That to me is a difference in kind to what we have here, as I do not see an informed customer willingly accepting the adware deal. I would very much like to see the court judge if there has been a "fraud in the factum", that is, if there has been any "meeting of the minds" between the seller and the customer regarding this "discount consumer laptop".
I wouldn't. Modern judges have done a terrible job of keeping up with technology. It's as likely as not that the judge would rule something crazy like all EULAs are binding contracts and then we'd all be fucked.
That's the point where you take out the EULA from your pocket that says "This EULA applies when X is brought before any judge. If you intend to declare against X then you forfeit all goods, rights, chattels and possessions to X. By bringing X before you you are agreeing to release him without charge. By not destroying this EULA you accept it's terms as binding on pain of death." ...
They'd still put you away, or whatever, you'd just then have confirmation that the rule of law doesn't apply in that jurisdiction.
Not at all. I'm entirely for the rule of law - EULAs are clearly wrong and should be held to be entirely unenforceable. IMO the suggestion that their unilateral terms are legal requirements should instead be met with a severe penalty, it's deception.
Until there is a serious reform of the courts, either by active effort or by sufficient replacement with younger judges, taking things to court is likely only going to bring about the opposite.
