Two recent Court of Appeal decisions show, through contrasting facts, how an unconscionability analysis applies to a purported class action waiver. In the first, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) upholds a trial court's finding of unconsctionability related to a class action ban in an automobile RISC contract arbitration provision. Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports (August 13, 201). In the second, the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) upheld an Order striking class allegations according to a class action ban in an arbitration agreement between walnut growers and a walnut processor. Walnut Producers v. Diamond Foods (August 16, 2010). The Walnut Producers case contains a thorough discussion of whether the doctrine of unconscionability applies to commercial contracts (short answer: it does - the facts of formation, not the classification of the contract type, govern unconscionability analysis).
I will try to post more on these two cases soon.