The person I am replying to is an obvious troll, but it is worth mentioning that there is very little to "test in court". Basic copyright law says that you cannot copy someone else's code and distribute software based thereon. *GPL* provides a workaround, provided that you follow the terms of the license. If a court were to invalidate all of AGPL, the default fallback would simply be that nobody is able to distribute the software.
Trolling requires subterfuge, in an effort to draw someone into a debate on false pretenses, so that they can be ridiculed for, as they say, eating the pasta.
My comment is and was completely sincere; I am not trolling. It legitimately boggles my mind how people read the text of the AGPL and don’t see that it’s plainly and obviously a EULA (which makes it nonfree).
I’ve even written about it before: https://sneak.berlin/20250720/the-agpl-is-nonfree/
I am not a lawyer but I’m not sure if that fail-closed situation is how it would work; presumably some parts of it could be found to be invalid without invalidating the entire license? It’s not my field, I am just guessing.