I have done some more digging and found even more hopeful information. The 'Comb v PayPal, Inc.' case set the precedent of arbitration clauses to be unconscionable. this would really help with anyone wanting to sue Ubisoft in the US as you could avoid arbitration entirely and go straight to the courts.
Another thing to note, both of these cases were held in California (which seems to be a good state for consumer protection laws). Anyone living in California could file for the case to be heard there thanks to a precedent set by Bragg v. Linden Research, wherein it was determined that California had jurisdiction due to ad's for second life airing there. So if Ubisoft ran ads for The Crew in California you could force the case to be in a Californian court.
A few things to note, it seems there is still no real legal precedent on whether games are considered a good or a service. From what i can tell it depends on what state you are in. Although I am not familiar enough with the law to know what difference that would make, if the EULA is thrown out it is not really knowable if that would force Ubisoft to return access to the game. Again nothing like this has been tested in the courts. 'ProCd, Incorporated v. Zeidenberg' is not quite the same as it was a fair license, the PayPal case is different as it was about money being taken from bank accounts without notice. The closest case I found was the Second Life case, but as it was settled out of court it never gave us a definitive answer.
The Second Life case also dealt more with owning virtual goods that were paid for (virtual land in this case). If someone spent money on a car for The Crew they could use this case to argue that they should still be allowed to access that car (and thus access the game).