Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
[1] - https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca78/2020bc...