Patty J. Gandee, Individually and on Behalf of a Class, Respondent, v. LDL Freedom Enterprises, Inc., et al., Appellants., 176 Wn.2d 598

Summary

Court held that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under 9 U.S.C.S. § 2 because the venue provision imposed financial hardship on the debtor, the "loser pays" provision was one-sided and overly harsh, and the 30-day limitation period was substantively unconscionable. Moreover, the arbitration clause itself is so permeated with unconscionable provisions as to make severance impossible. Finally, the court's conclusion as to the invalidity of the binding arbitration clause was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14, as recently determined by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, because the rule overruled in that case was an overbroad rule invalidating an arbitration clause that might be otherwise conscionable.