With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Similarly, the Court’s finding that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable under Washington law was based, in part, on the same class action waiver provision. Defendant filed its Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of the Court’s denial of its Motion to Compel Arbitration on June 22, 2010 (DE # 611), and the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Appeal on July 9, 2010 (DE # 664). While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided the cases of Rent-A-Cent&r, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (finding valid delegation clauses which delegate to the arbitrator questions of arbitrability), and AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (<HOLDING>). KeyBank moved for an indicative ruling under

A: recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts
B: holding that the federal arbitration act requires enforcement of class action waivers in arbitration clauses even when massachusetts law provides for a substantive right to bring a class proceeding
C: holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy
D: holding that the federal arbitration act preempts state laws that classify collective or classaction waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable
D.