I think the difference is in the implication.
“Banks can make up agreements and unilaterally bind you to them.” vs. “The agreement you signed can bite you in the ass when the bank tries to apply it to all your interactions with them, including unforeseen matters.”
It’s the Daily Mail school of journalism: identify an issue that’s real at the core and then extend a helping hand to your readership and make it easier for them to feel what they presumably want to feel anyway.
