This is all technically true and I 90% agree with the measures you suggested. My only issues are the fact that the ability for a seller to just ignore the negotiation request functionally means that EULAs are nonnegotiable contracts. Our rights mean nothing because their right of refusal is inherently more final. A consumer has no recourse to press the engagement of a seller who has refused negotiations.

I agree in principal that the advocacy should be held at arms length from government agencies, but then you end up with well funded minority advocacy groups like the various right wing religious "parents" groups that push for censorship and other BS that most people are not for. The only way I would accept a civilian advocacy group would be if it were heavily regulated on how it can operate and absolute transparency on the books. I want to know who is funding them, who is directing their "advocacy", and have the ability to collectively pump the brakes on them of they start working against our interests.

I think the strongest idea is the one we share. EULA contracts need to be reigned in and be much more heavily restricted in what they can and cannot say. There also should be a legal framework for managing the whole "if any part of this contract is found to be unenforceable, all other clauses remain in effect" because it allows companies to put bullshit clauses that they know are outright illegal and violate consumer rights into the EULAs and just write it off when they get caught without consequences. There should be a limit somewhere. Some way for a judge or regulatory body to step in and say "OK, you have like 5 unenforceable clauses in here, the contract is void and all consumers who were previously party to it are released. Also, here is a $10,000/affected consumer fine, you have 30 days to pay it." Idk, something with real teeth.