Yeah, my main worry here is how we define the unwanted traffic, and how that definition could be twisted by bigcorp lawyers.

If it's too loose and similar to "wanted traffic is how the authors intend the website to be accessed, unwanted traffic is anything else", that's an argument that can be used against adblocks, or in favor of very specific devices like you mention. Might even give slightly more teeth to currently-unenforceable TOS.

If it's too strict, it's probably easier to find loopholes and technicalities that just lets them say "technically it doesn't match the definition of unwanted traffic".

Even if it's something balanced, I bet bigcorp lawyers will find a way to twist the definitions in their favor and set a precedent that's convenient for them.

I know this is a mini-rant rather than a helpful comment that tries to come up with a solution, it's just that I'm pessimistic because it seems the internet becomes a bit worse day by day no matter what we try to do :c