agreements than on other contracts, it is prevented from so doing. See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 492 n. 9, 107 S.Ct. 2520, 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987) (noting that state law “whether of legislative or judicial origin” may apply in determining the validity of a contract to arbitrate if that law concerns “the validity, revocability, and enforceability of contracts generally,” but any state law principle that “takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with th[e] requirement of § 2” of the FAA); DeArmond, d 814, 816-19 (11th Cir.2001) (same); Hubbert, 296 Ill.Dec. 258, 835 N.E.2d at 125-26 (same); Stenzel, 2005 ME 37, ¶28, 870 A.2d 133 (same), with Luna v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1178-79 (W.D.Wash.2002) (<HOLDING>); Leonard v. Terminix Int’l Co., 854 So.2d 529,
holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are 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 an arbitration agreement between a lender and a borrower that included a bilateral exception for claims less than 10000 was not substantively unconscionable even if one party is substantively more likely to bring small claims actions   holding that a 30day limitations provision is substantively unconscionable holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable