171 Cal.Rptr.3d 621. The delegation clause appears on the eleventh page of a form agreement, without a separate header or any other indicator (e.g., bold or relatively larger typeface) that would call a reader’s attention to the provision. Put simply, Gillette and other drivers would have no reason to know or suspect that arbitrability would be decided by an arbitrator under the 2013 Agreement. Thus, the delegation clause specifically is procedurally unconscionable. 2. Substantive Unconscionability Substantive unconscionability arises when a provision is overly harsh, unduly oppressive, so one-sided as to shock the conscience, or unfairly one-sided. See Tompkins, 2014 WL 2903752, at *15; Tiri, 226 Cal.App.4th at 243, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 621; see also id. at 243 n.6, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 (<HOLDING>). Gillette contends the delegation clause in
recognizing that california supreme court is currently considering the appropriate standard for determining whether a contract or contract term is substantively unconscionable recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that the more substantively oppressive the contract term the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable and vice versa holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment