The California Supreme Court held in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (Feb. 2, 2026) that small or blurry print in an arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the agreement as unconscionable. Instead, the Court clarified that “illegibility” may create procedural unconscionability – i.e., unfairness in the way the agreement was presented to an employee –
unconscionability
California Supreme Court Clarifies Discovery Limitations and Severability in Arbitration Agreements
By Scott P. Jang on
Posted in Arbitration Agreements, Uncategorized
The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, affirming in part that the arbitration agreement contained some substantive unconscionability but remanding the case to determine whether the agreement could be salvaged by severing the unconscionable provisions. In doing so, the California Supreme Court clarified its view on the enforceability of…
California Court of Appeal Stresses the Difference Between Substantive and Procedural Unconscionability for Arbitration Agreements
By Scott P. Jang on
Posted in Arbitration Agreements
In a pair of cases decided by the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, the Court reiterated the difference between procedural and substantive unconscionability when it comes to invalidating arbitration agreements based on unconscionability: procedural unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the process leading to the formation of the agreement, whereas substantive…