Honestly I would, because that would make the masses object more. People (utterly subjectively derived) don't want to sign up with 30 marketing companies to save 5% on a car. That would shift the demand curve and make it cost a seller a portion of their expected revenue to demand people wave away so many rights, and (having worked in the mobile game industry) people take this seriously... Adding a barrier between a customer and your product costs you sales, so the more we materialize these externalities are real costs to sellers the more we'll see people actually respecting privacy rights.
There is no externality here because the costs fall entirely on the person who takes the decision. People, myself and quite possibly yourself included, really do want to sign up with 30 marketing companies to save 5% on a car.
They'd just sign off on every line and then later say they had no choice because they couldn't enjoy the thing they wanted otherwise. Just like every other ToS. Probably using arguments like "who should be expected to read each clause?!".
People _hate_ time share hard sells, some people still do them and some people still get suckered in but if you're trying to sell a product and you take the time share hard sell approach you'll scare off customers, even if the product is deserving of their attention. The approach I mentioned might not be the right way, but (for the sake of the free market, why won't anyone thing of the poor free market) we, as a society, need to start pinning the costs of externalities to their benefactors. I think burdening them by removing transferable rights might be a good step in that direction.
