The terms are to protect our company in more extreme situations, not a reflection of our plans to start auditing anyone.
I feel uncomfortable commenting on this issue because it is very easy to be misunderstood.
Fact remains that on this matter -- and this is simply a matter of law -- WA would be very remiss not act clearly to protect their rights. It is a simple matter of law that in many cases, and this is one of them, if you do not explicitly state that you are aware that you have certain rights, then you lose them by default. You might never intend to exercise those rights, but if you do not make clear in the first place that you know you have them and that they exist, then you cannot seek to claim them after the fact. The reason for this is that the Defendant in question could always claim that they did not know that you had those rights, and did not know you meant to exercise them ... and that if they had known then they would have behaved differently. Unfortunately, that does sometimes work as a defence. If you think of a person being arrested, it does not matter how guilty they are, but if proper procedure is not followed while they are being arrested, including being told their rights, then the arrest is forfeit and they cannot be tried and found guilty.
Simply to try to indicate the issues, here is a quite interesting and recent case involving Apple, which was heard in the Santa Clara Suprioer Court, California. Apple was claiming copyright infringements. They lodged a Motion before a judge asking to be allowed to gather information to prove their case. A case cannot be proven, after all, without hard evidence, and "Discovery" is an attempt to gather evidence either to prove one's own case, or disprove the one brought against you. If a shop claimed that you had been shoplifting, and you had lost the receipt, then you would be quite within your rights, for the trial, to ask a judge to please allow you to examine their till receipts for yourself for the proof you need that you are innocent. If you did not find the till receipt, but numbers 2003 and 2005 were present and 2004 was missing, then you could make the case to the jury that they had deliberately destroyed the one that proved your innocence. If you could not do that, any shop that wanted to "get" you could try it on.
I just offer to try to show that the legal issues here are not that simple, and have been hashed out numerous times in many places.
It covers some of the issues involved here: