I don't think People v. Network Associates (the McAfee case, 758 N.Y.S.2d 466 (2003)) is on point. That case involved a number of complex facts, like a difference between the license agreement (which did not contain the restrictive terms and contained an "entire agreement" clause) and the warning printed on the media; and whether consumers could be misled by the warning on the media.

The court did not hold that restrictions in license agreements were void due to public policy. Rather, it held that Network Associates could not bind customers to the language on the disks because the language deceived the customer.