If it's not legal, or not enforcable, that doesn't make it any less non- Free. If it's really known to be unenforcable, then the copyright holder should be willing to remove it from the license, and prevent the confusion (and misleading claims).
The other argument is that even without this choice of venue; Adobe could sue you in a Californian tribunal (am I wrong?, what could prevent Adobe acting in this way); so I do not see what are more inconvinient with this choice of venue.
Anyway the fact of being sued will cost you infinitively more (cost of the lawyer etc.) than the fly from Massachuset to California so that this argument seems doubly flawed.
Olive