AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
WISCONSIN AUTO TITLE LOANS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
Kenneth M. JONES, Defendant-Respondent.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
*520 For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Kenneth R. Nowakowski, Lisa M. Arent, and Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Kenneth R. Nowakowski.
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief by Peter M. Koneazny and Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, Inc., and oral argument by Peter M. Koneazny.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Deborah M. Zuckerman, Michael Schuster, and American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, D.C.; Mary Catherine Fons and Fons Law Firm, Stoughton, on behalf of AARP, Consumer Federation of America, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and National Consumer Law Center.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Stephen E. Meili, Sarah N. Mervine, and University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, on behalf of University of Wisconsin Law School Consumer Law Litigation Clinic.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Frank Tuerkheimer and University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison, on behalf of University of Wisconsin Law Professors.
*519 ¶ 1. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals affirming an order by the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Michael D. Guolee, Judge.[1] The circuit court denied the motion of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. to stay judicial proceedings on Kenneth Jones's counterclaims and to compel Kenneth Jones, the borrower, to arbitrate his counterclaims. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order and we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
*521 ¶ 2. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the arbitration provision in the loan agreement between Wisconsin Auto Title Loans and the borrower is unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. If the arbitration provision is unconscionable, the circuit court was correct in not staying judicial proceedings or compelling arbitration on the borrower's counterclaims.
¶ 3. The circuit court concluded that the "arbitration provision is unconscionable under general common law contract standards . . . and the unconscionability provision of the Wisconsin Consumer Act" and that the provision "is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable according to those standards."[2] Accordingly, the circuit court denied the motion of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans to compel arbitration on the borrower's counterclaims and to stay the court proceedings. The court of appeals also held the arbitration provision unconscionable on procedural and substantive grounds.
¶ 4. We hold that the arbitration provision of the loan agreement between Wisconsin Auto Title Loans and the borrower is unconscionable.
¶ 5. The challenge to the validity of the arbitration provision is to be decided by the courts, even though the arbitration provision in the instant contract provides that the validity of the arbitration provision is to be decided in arbitration. Indeed, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans does not argue that the validity of the arbitration provision must be decided in arbitration.
*522 ¶ 6. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that although challenges to the validity of a contract as a whole must be made in arbitration if the contract so provides, challenges to an arbitration provision in a contract may be raised in a court proceeding.[3] Like the arbitration agreement in the instant case, the arbitration agreement in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, No. 04-1264, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Feb. 21, 2006), expressly provided that the arbitrator was to decide challenges to the validity of the arbitration provision. Therefore, because this appeal addresses only the unconscionability of the arbitration clause, not the validity of the contract as a whole, the issue is properly before a court and not an arbitrator.
¶ 7. The following factors render the arbitration provision procedurally unconscionable: Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in the business of providing loans with automobile titles as collateral and was experienced in drafting such loan agreements; Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in a position of substantially greater bargaining power than the borrower; the borrower was indigent and in need of cash; and the loan agreement was an adhesion contract presented to the borrower on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
¶ 8. The broad, one-sided, unfair "save and except" parenthetical in the arbitration provision of the loan agreement allowing Wisconsin Auto Title Loans *523 full access to the courts, free of arbitration, while limiting the borrower to arbitration renders the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Other factors support this conclusion of law.
¶ 9. Thus a sufficient quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability exists to render the arbitration provision invalid. We therefore affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings on Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' replevin action and the borrower's answer and counterclaims.
I
¶ 10. No evidentiary proceedings were held in the circuit court. The following facts are in the record and are not disputed.
¶ 11. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is a Wisconsin corporation that provides short-term loans to consumers.
¶ 12. On December 6, 2001, Jones, the borrower, obtained an $800 loan from Wisconsin Auto Title Loans. The borrower and Wisconsin Auto Title Loans entered into a loan agreement, promissory note, and security agreement providing the borrower an $800 loan. We refer to these documents collectively as the "loan agreement."
¶ 13. The loan agreement executed by Wisconsin Auto Title Loans and the borrower is a pre-printed standard form short-term loan agreement provided by Wisconsin Auto Title Loans. To receive the loan, the borrower had to deliver a security interest in his motor vehicle, a 1992 Infiniti, in the form of a title to Wisconsin Auto Title Loans; purchase a $150, one-year membership in Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' "Continental *524 Car Club"; and pay a $4 filing fee on the motor vehicle title.[4]
¶ 14. The loan agreement calls for a single payment of $1,197.08, due on January 3, 2002, which includes the original $800 loan amount, $243.08 of finance charges, and the $154 the borrower borrowed from Wisconsin Auto Title Loans to pay Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' fees. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans represents in its loan agreement that the annual percentage rate for the finance charge is 300%.
¶ 15. The loan agreement also includes the arbitration provision at issue in the instant case. The arbitration provision broadly states that all disputes, controversies, or claims between the borrower and Wisconsin Auto Title Loans relating to the loan agreement shall be decided by binding arbitration. Nevertheless, the arbitration provision carves out for Wisconsin Auto Title Loans the right to enforce the borrower's payment obligations in the event of default by judicial or other process, including self-help repossession. The arbitration provision provides as follows:
BORROWER and LENDER agree that the transactions contemplated by, and occurring under, this Agreement involve "commerce" under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et. seq.). Any and all disputes, controversies or claims (collectively, "claims" or "claim"), whether preexisting, present or future, between the BORROWER and LENDER, or between BORROWER and any of LENDER's officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, or shareholders, arising out of or related to this Agreement (save and except the *525 LENDER's right to enforce the BORROWER's payment obligations in the event of default, by judicial or other process, including self-help repossession) shall be decided by binding arbitration under the FAA. Any and all claims subject to arbitration hereunder, asserted by any party, will be resolved by an arbitration proceeding which shall be administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Arbitration Rules (the "Arbitration Rules"), as presently published and existing. However, in the event that BORROWER initiates arbitration, BORROWER shall pay the first $125.00 of the filing fee required by the Arbitration Rules, and LENDER will pay the remaining amount of such fee, as well as any required deposit. In the event LENDER initiates arbitration, LENDER shall pay the entire amount of such filing fee and any required deposit. The parties agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator(s). Any issue as to whether this Agreement is subject to arbitration shall be determined by the arbitrator. This agreement to arbitrate will survive the termination of this Agreement. BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES, YOU WAIVE ANY RIGHT YOU MAY OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO LITIGATE CLAIMS THROUGH A COURT OR TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL.[5]
¶ 16. The loan agreement also includes a single printed page entitled REMINDER TO BORROWER, including seven reminders. The seventh reminder *526 states as follows: "Please note, this is a higher interest loan. You should go to another source if you have the ability to borrow at a rate of interest below 25 percent per month or 300 percent APR."[6]
¶ 17. At the bottom of this REMINDER is a place for a borrower to sign, indicating that he had read the reminder, understood its contents, and understood that unless he paid the amount due he was placing continued ownership of his automobile at risk. The borrower signed the reminder.
¶ 18. Beginning in January 2002, the borrower made several partial cash payments on the loan, which Wisconsin Auto Title Loans accepted. On April 22, 2002, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans served on the borrower a notice of default on the loan. The notice of default stated that a daily interest rate of $7.84 would be added to the original loan and that in order to avoid litigation and repossession of the car, the borrower had to repay the loan plus interest and penalties on or before May 6, 2002.
¶ 19. The amount owing as of April 22, 2002 was $1,509.72. The amount owing as of May 6, 2002 was stated to be $1,627.32. The notice of default advised the borrower that if he did not pay the total past due including interest by the date stated or make arrangements for payment, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans had "THE RIGHT TO COMMENCE ACTION FOR YOUR ENTIRE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AND/OR FOR REPOSSESSION OF YOUR MOTOR VEHICLE SECURING THE NOTE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, DEMAND, OR RIGHT TO CURE."[7]
*527 ¶ 20. On May 10, 2002, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans commenced an action to recover possession of the borrower's 1992 Infiniti. The complaint, labeled "small claims-replevin," stated that it sought to enforce a cause of action arising from a consumer credit transaction and that the borrower did not have the right to cure a default under Wis. Stat. § 425.205.
¶ 21. The borrower filed an answer admitting that the consumer credit transaction described in the complaint occurred between the parties. The answer alleged, inter alia, that the full documents were not attached or identified in the complaint (but were attached to the answer), denied Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' calculation of the amount financed, interest, and balance due, and denied any obligation to pay amounts stated in the complaint to exercise the right to redeem the collateral. The answer requested that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, together with remedies available under Wis. Stat. §§ 425.301-425.311. The answer also sought the relief requested in the counterclaims.
¶ 22. The borrower alleged counterclaims both for himself and as class claims (on behalf of a class of all similarly situated customers of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans). The counterclaims assert that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans willfully and knowingly conceals consumer loan transaction costs to its customers, imposes loan interest and other finance charges without proper disclosures, engages in collection practices without properly advising its customers of their rights and obligations, and imposes unconscionably exorbitant loan rates and charges, and that the loan agreement was unconscionable under Wis. Stat. § 425.107. The borrower made a jury demand for his counterclaims and the case was transferred from small claims to the circuit court.
*528 ¶ 23. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans did not answer the counterclaims but moved to compel the borrower to arbitrate the counterclaims in accordance with the terms of the parties' agreement and pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and Wis. Stat. § 788.03. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans also moved to stay litigation of the counterclaims pending arbitration. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans did not move to stay litigation with respect to the original replevin complaint.[8] The borrower opposed Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' motion on the grounds that the express terms of the arbitration provision provide for issues relating to default on the loan to be resolved in a judicial forum and that the *529 arbitration provision is not valid or enforceable under common and statutory law.
¶ 24. The circuit court held the arbitration provision unconscionable. The court of appeals granted Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' request to appeal the nonfinal order of the circuit court and affirmed the circuit court's order denying Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' motion to compel arbitration. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans petitioned for review by this court, and we granted review.
II
¶ 25. The validity of a contract provision involves determinations of fact and law.[9] A reviewing court will not set aside a circuit court's finding of fact unless clearly erroneous, that is, unless the finding is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.[10] Whether the facts found by the circuit court render a contractual provision unconscionable is a question of law that a reviewing court determines independently of the circuit court and court of appeals but benefiting from the analysis of these courts.[11]
*530 III
¶ 26. We begin by examining the rules of law for determining whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable. Several basic principles come into play.
¶ 27. First, contract law is grounded on the principle of freedom of contract, which protects the justifiable expectations of parties to an agreement, free from governmental interference.[12]
¶ 28. Second, arbitration provisions are presumed to be valid in Wisconsin.[13] An arbitration provision, *531 however, may be invalid for reasons that apply to all contract provisions.[14]
¶ 29. Third, a contract provision is invalid if it is unconscionable.[15] The concept of unconscionability has deep roots in both law and equity but was developed *532 primarily in equity.[16] For a contract or a contract provision to be declared invalid as unconscionable, the contract or contract provision must be determined to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.[17]
¶ 30. Fourth, a party seeking to invalidate a provision in a contract (here the borrower) has the burden of proving facts that justify a court's reaching the legal conclusion that the provision is invalid.[18]
¶ 31. Unconscionability is an amorphous concept that evades precise definition.[19] Indeed, it has been said that "[i]t is not possible to define unconscionability. It is not a concept but a determination to be made in light of a variety of factors not unifiable into a formula."[20]
*533 ¶ 32. We have made several attempts at delineating what is meant by unconscionability. The underlying principle that has evolved in such attempts is that "[t]he principle is one of prevention of oppression or unfair surprise and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power."[21] Unconscionability has often been described as the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party.[22]
¶ 33. A determination of unconscionability requires a mixture of both procedural and substantive unconscionability that is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.[23] The more substantive unconscionability present, the less procedural unconscionability is required, *534 and vice versa.[24] A court will weigh all the elements of unconscionability and may conclude unconscionability exists because of the combined quantum of procedural and substantive unconscionability.[25] "To tip the scales in favor of unconscionability requires a certain quantum of procedural plus a certain quantum of substantive unconscionability."[26]
¶ 34. Determining whether procedural unconscionability exists requires examining factors that bear upon the formation of the contract, that is, whether there was a "real and voluntary meeting of the minds" of the contracting parties.[27] The factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, age, education, intelligence, *535 business acumen and experience, relative bargaining power, who drafted the contract, whether the terms were explained to the weaker party, whether alterations in the printed terms would have been permitted by the drafting party, and whether there were alternative providers of the subject matter of the contract.[28]
¶ 35. Substantive unconscionability addresses the fairness and reasonableness of the contract provision subject to challenge. Wisconsin courts determine whether a contract provision is substantively unconscionable on a case-by-case basis.[29]
*536 ¶ 36. No single, precise definition of substantive unconscionability can be articulated. Substantive unconscionability refers to whether the terms of a contract are unreasonably favorable to the more powerful party.[30] The analysis of substantive unconscionability requires looking at the contract terms and determining whether the terms are "commercially reasonable,"[31] that is, whether the terms lie outside the limits of what is reasonable or acceptable.[32] The issue of unconscionability is considered "in the light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs."[33]
¶ 37. We turn now to the instant case to determine whether the arbitration provision in the loan agreement is unconscionable.
*537 A
¶ 38. Here we address the issue of procedural unconscionability. We first examine the circuit court's findings of fact and then determine whether the facts of record support the conclusion of law regarding procedural unconscionability.
¶ 39. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans argues that the circuit court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, that is, they are not supported by evidence in the record or reasonable inference therefrom. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans asserts that the circuit court failed to hold a required evidentiary hearing and that the circuit court erroneously based its findings of fact on the pleadings and trial briefs, not evidence.[34] Wisconsin Auto Title Loans asserts that the only evidence the borrower provided was the contract itself; he submitted no affidavit evidence establishing the particulars of his situation.[35]
¶ 40. The circuit court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans bases its argument that the lack of an evidentiary hearing is fatal to a procedural unconscionability determination on Datronic Rental Corp. v. DeSol, Inc., 164 Wis. 2d 289, 474 N.W.2d 780 (Ct. App. 1991). In that case, the court of *538 appeals stated that "an evidentiary hearing is required to enable the court to make the necessary findings of fact to support a conclusion that a clause is unconscionable."[36] Although an evidentiary hearing is ordinarily required as a basis for the necessary findings of fact, an evidentiary hearing may not always be necessary to support a determination of unconscionability.
¶ 41. Facts may, under certain circumstances, be determined without an evidentiary hearing. For example, facts may be deemed agreed upon when they are not denied by answer.[37] Parties may stipulate to the facts.[38] A court may take judicial notice of certain facts.[39] A circuit court may make reasonable inferences *539 from the facts of record.[40] Thus, an evidentiary hearing is not required so long as the record contains facts of record and reasonable inferences therefrom sufficient to support a circuit court's findings of fact from which a court may reach a decision about procedural unconscionability.
¶ 42. Thus, we must examine the record in the instant case for the facts of record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom and determine whether these facts and inferences are sufficient to support a conclusion of law regarding whether the arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable.
¶ 43. The circuit court made the following findings of fact relating to procedural unconscionability:
1. The borrower obtained a loan from Wisconsin Auto Title Loans using his automobile as collateral;
2. The loan agreement contained various conditions and requirements;
3. The loan was not repaid to Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' satisfaction;
4. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is experienced in the business of supplying loans for which title to an automobile is provided as collateral;
5. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is experienced in drafting loan agreements;
6. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in a position of greater bargaining power than the borrower;
7. The loan agreement was presented to the borrower in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner;
8. The borrower was unemployed and needed the funds for household expenses; and
*540 9. The terms of the arbitration agreement were not explained to the borrower.
¶ 44. The first two findings of fact stated above are based on documents in the record. Specifically, that the borrower obtained a loan from Wisconsin Auto Title Loans including various conditions and requirements and using his automobile as collateral are facts set forth in the documents that both parties agree make up the loan agreement.
¶ 45. The third finding of fact, that the loan was not repaid to Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' satisfaction, is evident from Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' filing the action.
¶ 46. The fourth finding of fact, that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is experienced in the business of supplying loans with title to an automobile as collateral, is the circuit court's reasonable inference from the documents in the records. The circuit court could have reasonably made this inference from the name of the company and from its "tag line" appearing on the documents of record. The tag line reads, "The Cash You Need . . . Fast" (ellipses in original).
¶ 47. The fifth finding of fact, that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is experienced in drafting loan agreements, is apparent from the loan agreement forms in the record. The loan agreement is identified as "Contract #8429," implying that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans has engaged in a substantial number of loan transactions. Furthermore, the loan agreement, the Continental Car Club membership documents, and the "Reminder to Borrower" are all pre-printed, standardized documents, except for the relevant dollar amounts and due dates, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' name and address, the borrower's name and address, the pertinent information about the borrower's motor vehicle, and *541 the signatures. The only insertions typed on the forms are to complete the forms for the individual involved.[41]
¶ 48. It would not have been reasonable for the circuit court to infer that the borrower showed up at the office of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans with his own pre-printed forms. The only reasonable inference the circuit court could have made was the inference it did make, namely that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans drafted the pre-printed loan agreement or determined which printed standardized forms to use.
¶ 49. The circuit court could have reasonably inferred the sixth finding of fact, namely that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in a position of greater bargaining power, from the facts in the record. The lender is experienced in the business of making short-term auto loans, while the borrower is indigent.[42] It was reasonable *542 for the circuit court to infer a significant disparity between the parties' bargaining power and commercial sophistication.
¶ 50. Although the specifics of the borrower's financial situation are not in the record, the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom make it clear that the borrower was indigent, needed money, and was in a weak bargaining position. According to the record, six months after the execution of the loan agreement, the borrower executed an affidavit and petitioned the circuit court for waiver of the fee to remove the case from small claims court to circuit court. The circuit court granted the fee waiver, thus recognizing that "because of poverty" the borrower "is unable to pay the costs" of the court proceeding.[43] In addition, it seems unlikely that a person with financial means and a *543 strong bargaining position would agree to borrow money on the terms of the borrower's loan with Wisconsin Auto Title Loans.
¶ 51. Moreover, the Reminder to Borrower document (which is part of the loan agreement) advised the borrower that he was entering into a "higher interest loan" and that he should go to another source if he had the ability to borrow at a rate of interest below 25% per month and 300% per annum. From this fact, the circuit court drew the reasonable inference that the borrower had to sign the loan agreement as presented. The borrower apparently lacked a meaningful, alternative means to obtain a more favorable loan.
¶ 52. The seventh finding of fact, that the loan agreement was presented to the borrower in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner, may be reasonably inferred by the circuit court from all the circumstances described above. The pre-printed form contract involved in the present case is what is known in law as an adhesion contract, that is, a contract entirely prepared by one party and offered to another who does not have the time or the ability to negotiate about the terms.[44] In other *544 words, a contract of adhesion is a "standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it."[45]
¶ 53. Standardized form contracts are suspect because they may indicate the inequality of bargaining power between the parties to the contract.[46] Ordinarily, however, adhesion contracts are valid.[47] The court of appeals has correctly acknowledged that not every transaction is individually negotiated. Standardized form contracts are common and allow for savings in transaction costs.[48] Nonetheless, one of the attributes *545 of contracts of adhesion is that they are typically offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no opportunity for negotiation or modification. Thus, the circuit court reasonably inferred from the unmodified, pre-printed forms and the unequal bargaining power of the parties that the loan agreement in the instant matter was a take-it-or-leave-it contract presented by Wisconsin Auto Title Loans with no opportunity for negotiation or modification by the borrower.
¶ 54. The eighth finding of fact, namely that the borrower was unemployed and needed funds for household expenses, is not supported by evidence in the record and cannot reasonably be inferred from the record.
¶ 55. The ninth finding of fact, namely that the terms of the arbitration agreement were not explained to the borrower, is not supported by evidence in the record and cannot reasonably be inferred from the record.
¶ 56. The eighth and ninth findings of fact are derived from the pleadings and the borrower's trial brief.
*546 ¶ 57. Thus, circuit court's findings of fact 1 through 7 are supported by the evidence in the record, and these findings lead to our conclusion of law (and the conclusion of law reached by the court of appeals and circuit court) that a quantum of procedural unconscionability has been established. The formation of the contract was a product of the parties' unequal bargaining power and did not reflect a real and voluntary meeting of the minds of the contracting parties.[49]
¶ 58. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans points out that the loan agreement is short and written in plain English. Perhaps so, but the fact that a contract is written in plain English does not alone defeat a showing of a quantum of procedural unconscionability.[50] There are numerous other factors, such as age and intelligence, that go to procedural unconscionability that are not present in the record. However, no single factor is required to establish procedural unconscionability. We are satisfied that the evidence on the record, even without some of the other factors mentioned in our cases, supports our conclusion that there was procedural unconscionability in the formation of the loan agreement.[51]
B
¶ 59. We now address whether the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable. Even if the *547 arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable, it may be enforced if it is not substantively unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability focuses on the one-sidedness, unfairness, unreasonableness, harshness, overreaching, or oppressiveness of the provision at issue.
¶ 60. Substantive unconscionability has usually been successfully raised against commercial interests dealing with consumers, especially poor and disadvantaged consumers.[52] In many of the cases in which a contract provision has been held to be substantively unconscionable, a creditor has unduly restricted a debtor's remedies or unduly expanded its own remedial rights.[53] The instant case seems to be one in which the creditor has unduly restricted the debtor's remedies relative to those available to the creditor. We begin our discussion of substantive unconscionability by analyzing the scope of the arbitration provision.
¶ 61. The arbitration provision in the loan agreement broadly proclaims that any and all disputes, controversies, or claims between Wisconsin Auto Title Loans (or its employees or affiliates) and the borrower whether pre-existing, present, or future arising out of the loan agreement must be decided by binding arbitration. A parenthetical phrase "save[s] and except[s]" from binding arbitration Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' "right to enforce the borrower's payment obligations in the event of default, by judicial or other process, including self-help repossession."
*548 ¶ 62. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans justifies this "save and except" parenthetical as necessary to comply with Wis. Stat. §§ 425.203, 425.205, and 425.206, which limit non-judicial enforcement of actions to take possession of collateral. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans argues that these statutes protect consumers, not lenders. Thus, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans argues that the exception in the arbitration provision requiring that possession of collateral be taken in circuit court actually benefits the borrower. We are not convinced by this justification of the one-sided arbitration provision.
¶ 63. The "save and except" parenthetical in the arbitration provision exempting Wisconsin Auto Title Loans from binding arbitration extends further than allowing Wisconsin Auto Title Loans to bring a replevin action in circuit court. Not only may Wisconsin Auto Title Loans use a circuit court to replevy the loan collateral (the borrower's automobile), but the arbitration provision also allows Wisconsin Auto Title Loans to go to circuit court to enforce the borrower's payment obligations in the event of default.
¶ 64. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans has by the arbitration provision "saved and excepted" from binding arbitration all its disputes, controversies, and claims against the borrower. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans could, under the exception to the arbitration provision, use a circuit court to obtain a deficiency judgment. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is also permitted by the exception to use any other procedure that a lender might pursue to satisfy the borrower's obligation under the loan agreement. In contrast, the arbitration provision relegates all the borrower's claims to arbitration. The borrower is required to submit all his disputes, controversies, and claims against Wisconsin Auto Title Loans to binding arbitration.
*549 ¶ 65. That Wisconsin Auto Title Loans has chosen to bring only a replevin action in the circuit court in the instant case is of no moment. The issue is the substantive unconscionability of the arbitration provision, which "saves and excepts" all claims of Wisconsin Auto Title Loans from arbitration.
¶ 66. The exception to the arbitration provision is far too broad and one-sided, granting Wisconsin Auto Title Loans a choice of forum arbitration or the circuit court for its claims, while permitting the borrower to raise claims only before an arbitrator. The doctrine of substantive unconscionability limits the extent to which a stronger party to a contract may impose arbitration on the weaker party without accepting the arbitration forum for itself.[54]
¶ 67. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans contends that one-sidedness of the arbitration provision does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the provision is unenforceable. Several courts have upheld one-sided arbitration provisions against unconscionability challenges.[55]
*550 ¶ 68. While we appreciate that a one-sided arbitration provision may not be unconscionable under the facts of all cases, we conclude that the overly one-sidedness of the arbitration provision at issue in the instant case renders the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Many courts have reached a similar conclusion of unconscionability when one-sided arbitration provisions require the weaker party to arbitrate.[56]
*551 ¶ 69. The unconscionable one-sidedness of the arbitration provision is sufficient to hold the arbitration *552 provision substantively unconscionable, and we so hold. We should, however, comment that other factors compound the substantive unconscionability.
¶ 70. Requiring the borrower to litigate similar or identical claims before both a circuit court and an arbitrator is burdensome on the borrower. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans concedes that, under the loan agreement, the borrower may bring any affirmative defenses to the replevin action in circuit court. Thus, the borrower is permitted to argue before the circuit court that the replevin action cannot be sustained because the loan agreement is unconscionable. However, if the borrower wishes to maintain a substantive cause of action based on the same theory of unconscionability, the arbitration provision requires the borrower to bring such an action before an arbitrator.[57]
¶ 71. The possibility of dual forums for intertwined defenses and counterclaims imposes an unnecessary *553 and undue burden on the borrower; to redeem his property and also obtain a statutory remedy, he must litigate the same issue twice. Yet Wisconsin Auto Title Loans need not litigate in two forums to vindicate its rights. We agree with the court of appeals, which has stated: "[U]ncontemplated inconvenience . . . is a factor in deciding whether [a] clause is unconscionable."[58]
¶ 72. Further supporting our conclusion that the broad one-sided arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable is the fact that the provision "saves and excepts" a self-help remedy for Wisconsin Auto Title Loans. Wisconsin Stat. § 425.206 does not permit self-help repossession in the instant case; a judicial order is required. Thus, the arbitration provision includes a remedy that is prohibited by statute. While this defect alone might not be enough to render the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable, it does support such a determination.
¶ 73. Moreover, although the arbitration provision is silent on class actions, the parties assume the borrower must pursue his claims individually in arbitration and not as the representative of a class.[59] Even if it were possible to pursue class claims in arbitration, and we do not address this issue, the relief available to the putative class appears to be substantially broader in *554 circuit court than in arbitration. Under the Wisconsin Consumer Act, a class action may be maintained for injunctive relief.[60] No such injunctive relief is available in arbitration. The arbitration provision, therefore, limits the meaningful remedies available to the borrower.[61]
¶ 74. Finally, the arbitration provision requires that the borrower pay the first $125 of any filing fee for arbitration. This fee is apparently assessed without regard for the borrower's indigence at the time he files an arbitration action. Although a $125 filing fee alone is unlikely to result in a conclusion of substantive unconscionability, it is significant in the context of short-term high-interest loan agreements because the borrowers are, in all likelihood, strapped for cash. The arbitration fee supports our conclusion that the arbitration provision *555 is substantively unconscionable. Courts have held that fee splitting in an arbitration provision renders the arbitration provision unconscionable.[62]
¶ 75. We conclude that the broad, one-sided, unfair "save and except" parenthetical allowing Wisconsin Auto Title Loans full access to the courts, free of arbitration, while requiring the borrower to arbitrate, renders the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Several other factors support this conclusion of law.
¶ 76. We thus conclude, as did the circuit court and court of appeals, that the arbitration provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. We further conclude that there is a sufficient quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability to render the arbitration provision invalid.
*556 IV
¶ 77. Finally, we turn to the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act[63] preempts state law that prohibits unconscionable arbitration provisions. The Federal Arbitration Act simultaneously protects arbitration provisions in contracts evidencing a transaction involving commerce and the same time protects the historic role of state law in the formation and enforceability of contracts. Thus § 2 of the Act provides that an arbitration provision may be unenforceable "upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." The Act functions to preserve state contract law.
¶ 78. Section 2 of the federal act states:
A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.[64]
¶ 79. Our application of state contract law to invalidate the arbitration provision at issue in the instant case is consistent with § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has expressly stated that "[g]enerally applicable contract *557 defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2 ...."[65] Our contract law on unconscionability does not single out arbitration provisions.[66] We therefore conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt our unconscionability analysis.
*558 ¶ 80. Although we do not rest our conclusion of unconscionability on the effect of the arbitration provision on remedies under the Wisconsin Consumer Act (class actions and injunctive relief), we do comment that the borrower's alleged inability to exercise class action and injunctive rights and remedies under the Consumer Act supports our conclusion of unconscionability.
¶ 81. Although the Wisconsin Consumer Act was not enacted to invalidate arbitration agreements, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans contends that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts an unconscionability analysis based on the provisions of the Wisconsin Consumer Act, because the Consumer Act is not a law of general applicability; the Consumer Act applies only to a subset of contracts.[67] Wisconsin Auto Title Loans also argues that the Consumer Act remedies such as class-wide injunctive relief must be preempted because, to the extent that they require judicial resolution, they are effectively no more than a ground to invalidate an arbitration provision.
¶ 82. Amici curiae University of Wisconsin Law Professors argue, on the contrary, that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts only those laws that target arbitration specifically while preserving through the savings clause state laws affecting contracts. In other words, amici contend that the Federal Arbitration Act savings clause exempts from preemption a state statute governing contracts generally that does not specifically *559 target arbitration provisions, even those statutes applicable to a subset of contracts. Thus, a state statute that regulates consumer contracts but does not specifically target arbitration provisions would, under their argument, be valid. Citing to the Uniform Commercial Code and statutory regulation of contracts of financial institutions, car dealers, and insurance companies, for example, the Professors argue that most contract law is subject-specific and that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' distinction between general contract defenses and the Consumer Act is illusory and untenable and has no place in Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence.
¶ 83. Amici find support for their position in a footnote in the United States Supreme Court opinion in Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (1987), in which the Court stated:
Thus state law, whether of legislative or judicial origin, is applicable if that law arose to govern issues concerning the validity, revocability, and enforceability of contracts generally. A state-law principle that takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with this requirement of § 2 [of the Federal Arbitration Act].[68]
¶ 84. The quoted language from Perry strongly suggests that the Wisconsin Consumer Act would not be preempted were the U.S. Supreme Court to address the issue.
¶ 85. We need not and do not decide this preemption issue in the instant case. As we discuss above, we conclude that the arbitration provision is unconscionable even if it did not foreclose class claims or injunctive relief under the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
*560 * * * *
¶ 86. In sum, we hold that the arbitration provision of the loan agreement between Wisconsin Auto Title Loans and the borrower is unconscionable.
¶ 87. The following factors render the arbitration provision procedurally unconscionable: Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in the business of providing loans with automobile title as collateral and was experienced in drafting such loan agreements; Wisconsin Auto Title Loans was in a position of substantially greater bargaining power than the borrower; the borrower was indigent and in need of cash; and the loan agreement was an adhesion contract presented to the borrower on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
¶ 88. The broad, one-sided, unfair "save and except" parenthetical in the arbitration provision allowing Wisconsin Auto Title Loans full access to the courts, free of arbitration, while limiting the borrower to arbitration renders the arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Other factors support this conclusion of law.
¶ 89. Thus a sufficient quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability exists to render the arbitration provision invalid. We therefore remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings on Wisconsin Auto Title Loans' replevin action and the borrower's answer and counterclaims.
¶ 90. By the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.
¶ 91. LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J. (concurring).
I join the opinion and mandate of the court. I write separately to add that which needs be said: charging 300 percent interest for a short-term loan to those who *561 can ill-afford it is ridiculous, unreasonable, and unconscionable. Wisconsin citizens deserve better.
¶ 92. Proponents of companies that provide auto title loans insist that the companies are providing a necessary service and taking on a risk that no other lender will take on. They assert that if they did not provide these loans, substantial numbers of people will be unable to obtain a loan. They also assert