If a party opposing arbitration wishes a court to decide whether a clause delegating arbitrability questions to the arbitrator is itself unenforceable for some reason, the party must mention that it is challenging the delegation provision and make specific arguments attacking the provision in its opposition to a motion to compel arbitration.  It is permissible, however, for that party to challenge the delegation provision and the arbitration agreement for the same reasons, so long as the party specifies why each reason renders the delegation provision unenforceable.  In evaluating an unconscionability challenge to a delegation provision under California law, a court must be able to interpret that provision in the context of the agreement as a whole, which may require examining the underlying arbitration agreement as well.  For example if outside the delegation clause, the arbitration provision required a large filing fee or a distant forum, an otherwise reasonable delegation clause might be found unconscionable.  Here, the delegation clause (and arbitration provision as a whole) was not unconscionable merely because it required customers and not CoinBase to engage in pre-arbitration procedures–attempt to resolve the problem informally and then file a complaint with CoinBase.  Those procedures were not onerous.  So the district court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration provision.