This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 512 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2008)] Sample Answer: Based on a recent holding by the Washington state supreme court, the federal appeals court held that the arbitration provision was invalid as unconscionable. Because it was invalid, the restriction on class-action suits was also invalid. The state court held that for consumers to be offered a contract that class-action restrictions placed in arbitrations agreements improperly stripped consumers of rights they would normally have to attack certain industry practices. Such suits are often brought in cases of deceptive or unfair industry practices when the losses suffered by the individual consumer are too small to warrant a consumer bringing suit. That is, the supposed added cell phone fees are small, so no one consumer would be likely to litigate or arbitrate the matter due to the expenses involved. Eliminating that cause of action by the arbitration agreement violates public policy and is void and unenforceable....
View Full Document
- Spring '10