the court determined that Delaware law should apply, and that the class action waiver was enforceable under Delaware law. Discover Bank v. Super. Ct., 134 Cal.App.4th 886, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 456, 458-59 (2005). In reaching its decision, the court cited to the law in eight other states where such class action waivers have been enforced, and the law in four states that had refused to enforce the waivers as unconscionable. Id. at 459 n. 3. {53} In this case, we apply Texas law, not California law, in determining whether the class action waiver invalidates the agreement. As previously discussed, the arbitration agreement, including the preclusion of proceeding as a class action, is enforceable under Texas law as well as in a number of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., M 30, 2006 WL 2243649 (<HOLDING>). {55} Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Fiser’s
holding that a 30day limitations provision is substantively unconscionable holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced holding that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it precluded the award of attorney fees which were authorized in the relevant ohio consumer protection statute holding that an award of attorney fees was authorized by ocga  13111 a 3 when the requirements of that statute were satisfied holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are substantively unconscionable