Supposedly legitimate adware are not proof of informed consent

If a user wants a piece of software, why can't he or she be allowed to install it separately (Diablo iii Gold)? If the bundled software were essential to the functioning of the original software (excluding generic functions such as install, un-uninstall, and documentation), why wouldn't the developer build its functions directly into the original software?

Sure, sometimes there's a software application that clearly complements another application. But for users who do not want the complementary software, having it just means a bloated install file and a needlessly long installation process.

Does the chance that users will want the bundled software ever outweigh the risk of the bundled software being installed without the user noticing? In the case of adware, the technology community is increasingly willing to put the burden of proof on the adware bundlers (Diablo 3 Gold Sale):

Cnet's download.com website recently removed any and all software that comes bundled with another piece of software that shows advertising, regardless of how well informed the user is of the bundled software.

Affiliate networks such as Commission Junction and Kolimbo have either cautioned advertisers against accepting adware distributors into their affiliate programs or kicked them out altogether.

Many technology law experts are saying that the click-wrap license agreements that supposedly legitimate adware are not proof of informed consent (Diablo 3 PowerLeveling). Some experts even say that such agreements amount to unconscionable contracts: the burden imposed by adware is so great and the benefit offered so negligible.