In MacClelland v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 27 named plaintiffs brought a class action against Verizon asserting false advertising claims. The plaintiffs' law firm also represents 2,685 Verizon customers with similar claims. The district court denied Verizon's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in its customer agreement, finding that the clause was substantively unconscionable because, inter alia, the "mass arbitration" provision in the arbitration clause was unreasonably favorable to Horizon. Under that provision, when 25 or more customers who are represented by the same counsel raise similar claims, the claims must be resolved pursuant to the following "coordinated proceeding":