the contract unconscionable under state law assuming state law is consistent with a unconscionable either procedurally or substantive economic argument they can't afford you know to to have the be the cost of the arbitrator and so on so why doesn't the offer to pay all the expenses moot point if you do that you you not made at the time the contract was warm through large case has been cited and followed whether it's wise or not it appears to be our answered the question i asked you is there anything in supreme court case since two thousand and two which would call into question the  rules their costs are limited to three hundred dollars which is less than the federal filing fee and this list reardon knows this because she has filed multiple against lest under using the employment thumb arm under which her clients were not required to pay any more than three hundred dollars so this deterrent effect that she has hypothesized about a that the law requires that you look at the time of contract formation assuming it's there is a contract form but that time you would say that the agreement provided that the aaa rules would apply and with the amendment of the aaa rules this matter has become moot in addition to the offer that was made in the district couric bad well actually or more generous offer that no more than fifty or all expenses would be borne by live yes question i'm afraid i don't know the answer ok and then on it gets removed and with then moves so live bearers the filing fee ok and then as i understood it as of some point in two thousand and eighteen live it changed the or extended to all drivers as i read the briefs i got the sense that the bands in the car of the woman they are they see this ability to be a little driver and they roll through this agreement they say i accept situation where you suddenly get this brilliant idea or i'm in downtown bus and i'm sitting in for applique and i scroll through this thing and i say i accept and you have me the fat getting clients i that he claims he couldn't read when it was you know when he called up the list that but yeah i think it's a matter of common sense that this was something she gave some core thought to and factual i'm not sure that i remember this properly from the from the briefing but well this one of the terms for somebody who actually did read the entire document would find was notice oh but that's the end of my question i didn't remember it properly ok i withdraw our further interruption to you right well there are three in the east appendix platform you may not use the services without accepting them well with the i'm not sure what the near reference to platform is going to do by giving notice to the driver when the driver sort of clicks on in the morning is there going to be a conspicuous notice saying by the way there's been a change you bet will work or out will he have to scroll through the entire eighteen or whatever pages to find out whether facts are on this particular you're going to try to reach an agreement both counsel and submit one liter if you cannot submit to letters and both of those letters should also address not only the notice to the driver with changing conditions that also my question about whether there is supreme court precedent calling the large case into question ok and said in our brief the supreme judicial court decision in my child which is massachusetts law and it's binding and it basically says that because of the massachusetts counsel waiting you do have time to go to the bathroom or we are back