With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ACORN, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 1170-71 (prohibition in arbitration provision on class wide relief unconscionable under California law); Leonard v. Terminix Int'l Co., L.P., 854 So.2d 529, 538-39 (Ala. 2002) (arbitration clause prohibiting class action unconscionable); Szetela v. Discover Bank, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862, 866-68 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (prohibition in arbitration provision on class wide relief unconscionable); State ex rel. Dunlap v. Berger, 567 S.E.2d 265, 278-80 (W. Va. 2002) (exculpatory language in arbitration provision preventing class relief unconscionable). But see Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (under California law, upholding an implied prohibition on the "consolidation of claims" in arbitration provision). 62 Ting, 319 F.3d at 1151 (<HOLDING>); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 279 F.3d

A: holding fee splitting provision of arbitration agreement unconscionable under california law
B: holding that an arbitration fee allocating scheme in an employment contract would alone render the arbitration provision unconscionable under california law
C: holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable
D: holding arbitration provision of automobile installment sales agreement unconscionable
A.