under which Quiznos is alleged to have directly or indirectly extracted exorbitant payments from its franchisees for the services, goods and materials essential to their businesses. They also claim that provisions intended to limit their means of redress are unconscionable. These include a prohibition on suing individual officers, agents or affiliates of Quiznos, a truncated (one-year) statute of limitations of any and all claims, a bar on punitive or exemplary damage claims, waiver of the right to a jury trial, prohibition of class actions and consolidation of claims or cases, and a forum selection and choice of law clause requiring cases to be brought in Colorado and decided under Colorado law. Citing cases such as Jones, plaintiffs argue that some or all of these provisions m ) (<HOLDING>); Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 223 Ill.2d
holding class action waiver contained in cellular telephone unconscionable under washington law holding the class action waiver provision of cellular telephone service contract unconscionable holding class action waiver in cellular telephone service agreement unconscionable holding arbitration clause added to contract for cellular telephone service unconscionable holding class action waiver in cellular phone contract unconscionable under california law