in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Given that we believe that a valid ground exists for the revocation of the class action waiver, it cannot be enforced under the FAA. E. Two Caveats. We emphasize two important limitations upon our holding. First, our decision in no way rests upon the status of the plaintiffs as “small” merchants. The plaintiffs repeatedly refer to themselves as “small merchants” and as “small businesses.” But Amex is correct when it counters that the plaintiffs “undoubtedly hope that, by labeling themselves as ‘small,’ they can benefit from one line of case law where individual consumers have alleged that arbitration agreements were imposed as a result of unequal bargaining power.” See, e.g., Lowden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 512 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Skirchak, 508 F.3d at 60 (holding class
holding class action waiver contained in cellular telephone unconscionable under washington law holding class action waiver to be enforceable under section 2 of the faa notwithstanding claim that waiver was unconscionable under state law holding class action waiver in cellular phone contract unconscionable under california law holding the class action waiver provision of cellular telephone service contract unconscionable holding arbitration clause added to contract for cellular telephone service unconscionable