Following Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, LP (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, this decision holds that an arbitration clause that merely calls for arbitration of all disputes arising under the agreement but does not specifically mention disputes about arbitrability issues fails to meet the “clear and unmistakable” standard for delegation of arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. It also follows Ajamian in folding that merely specifying arbitration pursuant to AAA rules is not enough to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitration when, as here, one of the parties to the arbitration clause is a consumer and presumably unsophisticated in such matters. Finally, the decision holds that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. It is procedurally unconscionable because it is confusing, self-contradictory and presented as an adhesion contract. It is substantively unconscionable because it its not mutual, allowing the defendant to litigate its most likely claims in court while confining consumers to arbitration. The clause was also substantively unconscionable in shortening the limitations period to one year, mandating arbitration in San Francisco (defendant’s home base), and allowing the arbitrator to award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party without regard to one-way consumer protection statutes under which plaintiff sued.