¶9, 134 N.M. 630, 81 P.3d 573 (observing that “[sjtates may not subject an arbitration agreement to requirements that are more stringent than those governing the formation of other contracts”). {43} Fiser again attempts to rely on cases applying California law, but we decline to consider them in light of the Texas and New Mexico cases to the contrary. F. Failure to Allow Class Arbitration {44} Fiser contends that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable because it unfairly restricts class actions due to the procedural rules of the National Arbitration Foundation (NAF), which do not allow claims to proceed as class actions. {45} We recognize that there is a split of authority on this issue. Compare Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638-39 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala., 244
holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are substantively unconscionable holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable