I agree that's a fair standard, but it does feel a little ... suboptimal to say "I can and will lie because I expect that they are lying."
The argument is, "I have no meaningful choice in the terms that I agree to, hence my agreement to those terms cannot be freely given. But I do have choice in whether to follow those terms and a means by which to operate outside of them. So I will ignore the terms that I find unnecessarily restrictive (subject to assessment of risk) and that may be the only actual influence I can exert in the situation."
because I /KNOW/ that they are lying
If not, then you can't KNOW they are lying any more than all the religious people who claim they KNOW that their church is true (which they all can't be, since they have contradictory beliefs).
Unless you've read The terms for the thing you are agreeing to, and have identified contradictions (lies) for which you have hard evidence to the contrary, you don't KNOW. This must be done for every company that you agree to, not just a single one. If we know that person a killed someone because we have it on camera and proved it in court, that obviously does not mean that an unrelated person b is also guilty of murder.
Short of that, you don't KNOW, you just expect.
Apologies, I didn't intend to lecture on this, it just touched a nerve I have with the overuse of the word know, and the negative effect that has had on science. Also maddening to be debating religion and have the person claim to know something that they clearly don't, such as that God exists and/or that he loves us, etc. The correct word they need is "believe"