With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". UFOC and Franchise Agreement, and that it had been “advised to seek professional assistance, to have professionals review the documents and to consult with other franchisees regarding the risks associated with the purchase of the franchise.” (Ex. A. Disclosure Ack-nowlegment Statement.). Each was also advised in the body of the Agreement that “BEFORE SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, FRANCHISEE SHOULD READ IT CAREFULLY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEGAL COUNSEL....” (Ex. A. § 23.12.) This is not the advice of a party engaged in “bargaining naughtiness.” Under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ unsupported assertion of procedural unconscionability rings hollow. On the issue of substantive unconsciona-bility, plaintiffs point to the provision of the Franchise Agr 306 Ill.Dec. 157, 857 N.E.2d 250 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91

A: holding class action waiver to be enforceable under section 2 of the faa notwithstanding claim that waiver was unconscionable under state law
B: holding class action waiver contained in cellular telephone unconscionable under washington law
C: holding arbitration clause added to contract for cellular telephone service unconscionable
D: holding the class action waiver provision of cellular telephone service contract unconscionable
D.