Disagreeing with Davis v. TWC Dealer Group, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 662, this decision holding that the arbitration provision in Nissan dealerships’ standard employment agreement is not unconscionable.  Though having a high degree of procedural unconscionability due to small print size and lengthy, obscure language, the clause is not substantively unconscionable.  Small print size and obtuse phrasing relate to procedural unconscionability only, not substantive unconscionability.  A separate trade secret agreement allowing the employer to seek injunctive relief in court is interpreted to harmonize it with the arbitration agreement to allow the employer to seek that injunctive relief in arbitration, thus not rendering the arbitration provision non-mutual.  Neither the confusing existence of a separate trade secrets agreement nor the lack of the employer’s signature on the arbitration provision render it non-mutual.  The separate agreement goes to procedural unconscionability.  The lack of signature to contract formation, not mutuality.  The agreement is not unconscionable due to the employer’s failure to tell the employee how to initiate arbitration.  (See Alvarez v. Altamed Health Services Corp. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 572, 590.)  The employer’s unilateral right to modify the contract doesn’t make it unconscionable.