unenforceable. Typically, the validity of an arbitration clause is decided by a court rather than an arbitrator. However, if the validity of the entire arbitration agreement is in dispute, then the issue is decided by the arbitrators in the first instance. This is known as the principle of separability. For example, in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, the Supreme Court of the United States held that "under the FAA, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator." In other words, the law typically allows federal courts to decide these types of "gateway" or validity questions, but the Supreme Court ruled that since Jackson targeted the entire contract rather than a specific clause, the arbitrator decided the validity. Public Citizen, an advocacy organization opposed to the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements, characterized the decision negatively: "the court said that companies can write their contracts so that the companies' own arbitrator decides whether it's fair to submit a case to that arbitrator." Modification of the arbitration clause A significant challenge to arbitrate agreements arose out of South Carolina through the case Hooters v. Phillips. In the 1999 case, a federal district court found that Hooters modified its dispute resolution rules in 1996 to be unfair enough that the court held that the agreement was unconscionable, partly due to Hooters requiring that all of the arbitrators in dispute resolution cases be selected from a list pre-approved by the company, which included Hooters managers. In April of 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that in Coady v. Nationwide Motor Sales, because Nationwide Motor Sales' contract enabled them to be the sole party permitted to modify the contract that Coady signed. Citing Hooters v. Phillips, the court expressed when an employer has the ability “in whole or in part” to modify the arbitration provision without notice to its employees. California's Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Peleg v. Neiman Marcus, in which a unilateral modification to an arbitration agreement invalidated the clause. Waiving the right to arbitrate Some courts have found that parties can waive their right to compel arbitration through various forms