such as Randolph from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum. But the record does not show that Randolph will bear such costs if she goes to arbitration. Indeed, it contains hardly any information on the matter. As the Court of Appeals recognized, “we lack ... information about how claimants would fare under Green Tree’s arbitration clause.” The record reveals only the arbitration agreement’s silence on the subject, and that fact alone is plainly insufficient to render it unenforceable. The “risk” that Randolph will be saddled with prohibitive costs is too speculative to justify the invalidation of an arbitration agreement. Id. at 91-92, 121 S.Ct. 513 (footnote omitted), see also Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 400 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) In this case, although all of the specific
holding that arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable due to its failure to specify identity of arbitrator forum location or allocation of costs holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy holding that plaintiff cannot be forced to submit to an arbitration process that imposes costs that render the arbitral forum less accessible than a judicial forum that the arbitrator is obligated to allocate costs and fees in accordance with the law and that therefore plaintiff bears no risk by proceeding to arbitration