Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama v. Rigas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that “unconscionability is an affirmative defense, and the party asserting the defense bears the burden of proving unconscionability”
• “To avoid an arbitration provision on the ground of un-conseionability, the party objecting to arbitration must show both procedural and substantive unconseionability.”
• \This Court has also recognized a distinction between 'substantive unconscionability' and 'procedural unconscionability' and categorized the factors [in Layne ] as either substantive or procedural.\
• “[T]he statement of the AAA provides only that the AAA will not administer a dispute such as this one; it does not provide that [the Appellee’s] claims are not arbitrable.”
• “In determining whether an arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable, we have looked at whether the consumer could obtain the product from the vendor or from another vendor without agreeing to an arbitration provision.”
• enforced agreement that required AAA rules, but not AAA administration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).