What do you mean unenforceable? In many jurisdictions it is a criminal offense to violate the terms of service of a web site. In Illinois the first violation is a misdemeanour punishable by a year in the county jail. Further violations carry 2-5 years in prison.
A ToS is limited in what it can legally contain by law.
The EU e.g. has 93/13/EEC aka "Unfair contract terms directive" which bans a lot of shenanigans in ToS (e.g. mandatory location for law disputes). Or just writing in your ToS that "you agree that contract parties are not bound by the EU GDPR" for another example, like some companies do write, doesn't mean this is a enforceable clause. Another example, Germany recently made a law that mandates automatic subscription renewals - such as mobile phone contracts, gym memberships or online services - can be cancelled every month (there already was a law before that limited the initial subscription contract to a duration of max 2 years).
If there are some laws specifically that disallow general "benchmarking" I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least in the EU such a clause would be unenforcable. That sounds like a clear unfair one-sided advantage (the customer cannot check the services actually provided match what was promised). Publication of such results is another matter.
Also, I am curious about what you said about Illinois? Sounds bonkers. I mean I could imagine criminal prosecution for a set of defined, deemed specially bad violations that constitute crimes, like "hacking" and "sabotage", but not for things like e.g. "failure to pay membership dues in time" and other civil matters. Then again, I remember that case of some guy in Florida who couldn't keep his lawn nice and green, and didn't have the money to replace the lawn again and again, so the HOA took him to court, he was ordered to replace the lawn (which he still couldn't afford) and ended up in prison for a couple of days for "contempt of the court" until some friends and neighbors replaced the lawn.
Among other places, in the United States. The CFAA [0] prohibits "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access". It's interpreted extremely broadly by the courts.
This means I could set up watchcutecatpictures.org with some fine print that prohibits watching more than 10 cats a day and call the cops on random people.
What legal reasoning exists to give companies this kind of unchecked power?
Just to make certain put a button that says "I agree" next to a link to the T+Cs.
>According to the court, DeJohn's claim that he did not read those terms was
>irrelevant because, absent fraud (which was not alleged), "failure to read a
>contract is not a get out of jail free card."
