In the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Section two states that arbitration agreements are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Despite this clear statutory mandate requiring the enforcement of arbitration agreements, parties constantly resist the arbitral process. Often, parties endeavor to use state contract law in attempts to prevent the court from compelling arbitration as required by FAA § 2. To preclude arbitration, parties frequently argue that they are not bound by the agreement because the underlying claims lack substantive arbitrability. While arbitrability challenges are slowly becoming more futile, the former route has flourished. By applying unconscionability doctrine, parties often persuade the court that the terms of the arbitration agreement shock the conscience and are unenforceable.
Amanda Miller, The Ninth Circuit Grapples with the Arbitrability and Unconscionability of MMWA Claims, 4 239 (2012).