v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir.2007) (“Corporations should not be permitted to use class action waivers as a means to exculpate themselves from liability for small value claims.”). We therefore hold that the class action waiver in the Card Acceptance Agreement cannot be enforced in this case because to do so would grant Amex de facto immunity from antitrust liability by removing the plaintiffs’ only reasonably feasible means of recovery. As already set forth, Section 2 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 2, provides that an agreement to arbitrate “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law o waiver in employment agreement unconscionable under Massachusetts law); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). We do not follow these cases because they all
holding the class action waiver provision of cellular telephone service contract unconscionable holding class action waiver in cellular telephone service agreement unconscionable holding class action waiver in cellular phone contract unconscionable under california 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 contained in cellular telephone unconscionable under washington law