Europe.
The WP case was in The Netherlands, over 20 years ago. It was the first I can remember and it has been followed by many since.
It's not black and white, either. If a manufacturer specifies that use of their software isn't safe with certain machines, it is legal and will limit the manufacturer's liability. The user is still free to proceed using that unsafe combination, but he can't blame the manufacturer.
It's a question of logic. Hence the example of an audio CD I mentioned before. If the CD publisher would state you can't listen to it on a certain brand of CD players, he would be laughed away. OTOH all CD licenses state that the use of the CD is for private listening only, not for public or broadcast. That's an accepted and logical use of a license agreement. Once you want to broadcast, there's no longer an EULA, but a real contract, signed by lawyers.
The industry has fi tried to limit 2nd hand sale of CD's video and software. That limit in the EULA has been thrown out by many courts if the product resides on a physical carrier. That's why I also said it would need to be revisited by the courts for streaming and that software publishers are moving to subscriptions which avoids the problem. But even when fi a video rental stops doing business, they can resell the tapes legally. If the buyer uses them for private viewing, there's no problem. If he wants to use the tapes to rent them out again, he'll have to renegotiate a contract with the rights holders.
That's also why piracy hasn't got anything to do with it. Piracy is illegal. There's no EULA for pirated goods, is there?
You can't legally resell fake gucci handbags or other physical goods either. There's no consumer or other legal protection for those and it doesn't matter if you're a private person or a company. Consumers returning from fi Bangkok with a fake gucci bag will see it confiscated at the border. They wil not be fined for it if it's only one or two bags. If there's suspicion of commerce, like someone with 20 fake bags, they will be fined. And if it is a business importing those fake bags, they will be prosecuted, fined and they risk jail time.
EULA's you agree to by opening the box that you can't read without opening said box are simply not accepted at all. Kinda logical you can't agree to something you can't read is it?
Likewise a EULA like the one from Focusrite that allows entry to your home or business, is generally not accepted because that area is governed by law. If a software maker wants to check if a person or a business is running pirated software, they have to ask the court for permission and hire a bailiff to get in. Of course, if you don't let them in, police will let the bailiff in.
The only exception I can think of, is public parties, where a representative of the rights holders collection agency can enter to check if the playlist has been declared and paid. Usually, these bills aren't paid before the party and he will draw up a bill on the spot. That can get out of hand, as schools have been billed for playing music, which is education, not a party. And education is a clear legal exception.
The right holders at times cross the line of legality and logic. Atm, for instance a few of them are claiming rights to the works of Beethoven and many other classical composers over on Youtube. These works have been in the public domain for a long time. But the industry claims recording rights, even when the music is played by and the recordings are made by the people putting up the music on YT. That's a flaw in the automatic detection algorithm being exploited by the industry.