court’ because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law may deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) their enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.” Allen, 94 F.3d at 928 (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991) and The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12-13, 92 S.Ct. 1907). First, ACC argues the forum selection clause is unreasonable under the circumstances because it is the result of “an overreaching business practice of Oracle.” According to ACC, Oracle used its superi- or bargaining position to insert boilerplate language into the License Agreement. See, e.g., Yoder v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 630 F.Supp. 756, 760 (E.D.Va.1986) (<HOLDING>). But see, e.g., Carnival Cruise Lines, 499
holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding that the forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims holding that corporations owned and controlled by the party signing the contract containing the forum selection clause may be bound by the clause holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding that a forum selection clause should not be enforced where a consumer is told by a corporate agent to ignore boilerplate contract language containing a forum selection clause where there is a material difference in bargaining power and where the forum designated by the contract has little to do with the transaction and is gravely inconvenient for the parties and witnesses