Aral v. Earthlink, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 544, involved California consumers who each incurred only about $50 in damages and who would have been required to litigate their claims in Georgia under the forum selection clause and on an individual basis (due to a class action waiver). The court there recognized that both California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court place "a heavy burden on the plaintiff who seeks to prove that a forum selection clause is unreasonable, particularly where the alleged unreasonableness is based on the additional expense and inconvenience of litigating far from home, the burden was not intended to be insurmountable." (Id. at p. 561.) The Aral court found that, under the facts of that case, trial in the contractual forum would be so " 'gravely difficult and inconvenient' " that a plaintiff would " 'for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.' " (Ibid., citing The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 18.) Therefore, "to expect any or all of them to travel to Georgia in order to obtain redress on a case-by-case basis, whether in a courthouse or in an arbitration hearing room, is unreasonable as a matter of law." (Aral, at p. 561.) In Aral v. EarthLink, Inc. (2005) plaintiffs alleged EarthLink charged fees to customers for digital subscriber line (DSL) service for a period prior to providing customers with the equipment necessary to utilize the service. The Court of Appeal found the class action waiver in EarthLink's arbitration clause unconscionable, finding (a) the " 'take it or leave it' " terms of the agreement with no opportunity to opt out was "quintessential procedural unconscionability," and (b) with respect to substantive unconscionability, the gravamen of the complaint was that numerous consumers were cheated out of small sums of money through deliberate behavior. (Id. at p. 557.) In sum, the Court reviewed the development of case law on the enforceability of forum-selection clauses. That case involved California consumers who each incurred only about $50 in damages and who would have been required to litigate their claims in Georgia under the forum-selection clause and on an individual basis (due to a class action waiver). (Id. at p. 561.) The court there recognized that both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court place "a heavy burden on the plaintiff who seeks to prove that a forum-selection clause is unreasonable, particularly where the alleged unreasonableness is based on the additional expense and inconvenience of litigating far from home, but the burden was not intended to be insurmountable." (Ibid.) The Aral court found that, under the facts of that case, trial in the contractual forum would be so " 'gravely difficult and inconvenient' " that a plaintiff would " 'for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.' " (Ibid., citing The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 18 32 L.Ed.2d 513, 92 S.Ct. 1907.) Therefore, "to expect any or all of them to travel to Georgia in order to obtain redress on a case-by-case basis, whether in a courthouse or in an arbitration hearing room, is unreasonable as a matter of law." (Aral, at p. 561.)