Plaintiffs had entered into various au pair agreements which
contained arbitration provisions, which defendants sought to
enforce when a class action was filed. The District Court of
Colorado denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration,
finding the au pair agreements "were contracts of adhesion and
procedurally unconscionable because the au pairs were relatively
young at the time they signed the contracts, were foreigners, spoke
English as a second language, and had no experience with contracts
or contract law."
The Circuit Court agreed that the arbitration provision was
unconscionable, but reached "that conclusion for reasons more
limited than those found by the district court." The Court
found the agreements were procedurally unconscionable "to a
moderate degree," as contracts of adhesion. As to substantive
unconscionability, the Court analyzed three clauses: (1) allowing
AuPairCar, Inc. to select unilaterally the arbitration provider has
a high degree of
