California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1670.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(b)When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 379 cases (110 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 311 P.3d 184 (Cal. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 311 P.3d 184 (Cal. 2013). · cites it 16× “‘ (Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a).)‖ (Sonic I, supra, 51 Cal.”

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., 353 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 12× “(Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a).) As we stated in Sonic II: ―The unconscionability doctrine ensures that contracts, particularly contracts of adhesion, do not impose terms that have been variously described as ‗ ― ‗overly harsh‘ ‖ ‘ (Stirlen v.”

Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho, 447 P.3d 680 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “Thus, when Kho signed the arbitration agreement - which is the relevant time for assessing unconscionability ( Civ. Code, § 1670.5, subd. (a) ) - it was entirely speculative whether any of the Berman procedure's asserted benefits would be available to him, and the only thing he…”

Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Because we are unable to save the arbitration agreement by severance or restriction, we hold that the entire arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable.”

David Tompkins v. 23andme, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “” Cal. Civil Code § 1670.5 (a). Courts may find a contract as a whole “or any clause of the contract” to be unconscionable.”

De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 422 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 5× “Unconscionability is a flexible standard in which the court looks not only at the complained-of term but also at the process by which the contractual parties arrived at the agreement and the larger context surrounding the contract, including its "commercial setting, purpose, and…”

McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “(Civ.Code, § 1670.5; Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1281, 1281.”

Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 4× “As noted, Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) provides that "[i]f the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the…”

Catherine Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia Corp., 328 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 2-302; Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.5; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).”

Lorrie Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “C If a California court concludes that a contract contains one or more unconscionable clause, it may: (1) refuse to enforce a contract that was “unconscionable at the time it was made”; (2) “enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause”; or (3) “limit…”

Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Background Civil Code section 1670.5, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that a contract clause found to be unconscionable is unenforceable, unless the court severs the clause or so limits its application as to avoid any unconscionable result.”

Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 1670.5 provides, “If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the…”

Show all 379 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 1670.5(a) — 58 cases

Mohamed v. Uber Tech., Inc., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Catherine Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia Corp., 328 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2003). “§ 2-302; Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.5; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).”

Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010).

Circuit City Stores, Inc. A Virginia Corp. v. Saint Clair Adams, a California Resident, 279 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2002).

Misty Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., & Leo Deleon Does 1-10, Inclusive, 298 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1670.5(b) — 3 cases

Holloman v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 894 A.2d 547 (Md. 2006).

Hamby v. Power Toyota Irvine, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (S.D. Cal. 2011).

Martin v. Teletech Holdings, Inc., 213 F. App'x 581 (9th Cir. 2006).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.