ACORN, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1170-71 (prohibition in arbitration provision on class wide relief unconscionable under California law); Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 854 So.2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (arbitration clause prohibiting class action unconscionable); Szetela v. Discover Bank, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862, 866-68 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (prohibition in arbitration provision on class wide relief unconscionable); State ex rel. Dunlap v. Berger, 567 S.E.2d 265, 278-80 (W. Va. 2002) (exculpatory language in arbitration provision preventing class relief unconscionable). But see Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (under California law, upholding an implied prohibition on the "consolidation of claims" in arbitration provision). 62 Ting, 319 F.3d at 1151 (<HOLDING>); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d
holding fee splitting provision of arbitration agreement unconscionable under california law holding that an arbitration fee allocating scheme in an employment contract would alone render the arbitration provision unconscionable under california law holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable holding arbitration provision of automobile installment sales agreement unconscionable holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable