End-user agreements are unfair to users because they allow developers to make unilateral demands on users without giving them the opportunity to negotiate or discuss the agreement's terms. Developers offer these agreements to users on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, leaving them little choice but to accept them. In most instances, the user cannot even know of the agreement until after purchasing the software. The agreements are also unnecessarily lengthy and complex that few users take the time to read when installing software.
There are fifty and sixty page User License Agreements and that is just unacceptable. Most people end up pressing accept without having read them because of the fact that there are too many pages to sift through. You don't go to cign up to a website/downloa a program to read a book about their rules.
These licenses are inherently unfair to the user who is presented with them with no real chance to look into what they are signing and often needs the software. Just because I have to buy a car, does not mean the company should be excused from liability when the engine blows up. Not to mention that they state things of dubious legal relevance trying to discourage people from persuing their legal rights.
I think it is unreasonable to qualify end-user license agreements as being unfair when there are only some bad ones, but a lot of good ones. End-user license agreements are used by companies to discharge themselves of faults in their products but more to protect themselves from abuse by malpractice by the user of that product.