In employment cases, Plaintiff’s claim that arbitration agreements with small or blurry print should not be enforced as substantively and procedurally unconscionable due to the difficulty in reading the words in the contract.
On February 2, 2026, the California Supreme Court in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. gave employers with such contracts new hope of enforcement concluding that a lack of legibility does not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the format (tiny print) is not relevant to test whether the terms are substantively unconscionable because font size does not mean that a contractual term is unduly harsh, one sided or unfair.
However, it should not be lost on employers that the Supreme Court cautioned courts that contracts with difficult-to-read terms should be “closely scrutinized” for unfairness or one-sidedness.
In addition, the Supreme Court held that fine print and difficult to read language will help support a claim of procedural unconscionability. Nevertheless, despite the Plaintiff’s contention that she only had five minutes to consider the contract of adhesion and sign it and other indicia of procedural concerns, the Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court for additional findings and decisions about both the validity of the contract and its enforceability.
Employers should take solace that the California Supreme Court continues to view arbitration agreements...
Key Takeaways Aetna allegedly leveraged inaccurate Medicare Advantage diagnosis coding to elevate risk adjustment payments, including morbid obesity coding inconsistent with clinical documentatio...