Hmm. I would also very much like to have something like this. But on the other hand, we already have something like that, it's just called law and contracts(and more specifically TOS) already specify what is different than in the law (like e.g. which court to use etc.

So if there were archetypal contracts and they would be balanced or even slightly favor users, there would just be longer TOS to counter them and every company will have the same boilerplate again.

So in that case this archetype will have to come from the industry or politics will have to force them to do something like this. This will then also have (at least) the following side-effects:

1. Lawyers of companies teaming up and tightening their TOS even more 2. Unclarified effects on the participating companies if parts of the common TOS get invalidated/overturned by a court decision 3. Since companies (are maybe forced to) work together, there is the risk of a cartel, since <agreeing on contract conditions to be the same across an industry> is pretty much the definition of a cartel.

To take care of all of that, legislation needs to be first-class and I can't see that happening.