On 6 October 2009, in Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, No. 08-1362 (8th Cir. 2009), the Eighth Circuit held that a credit card agreement with an arbitration clause inserted by amendment was not unconscionable. The court reasoned that the customer had "ample opportunity and time to opt out of the amendment," but nevertheless decided to continue using the card. Further, the court did not find any evidence that the company had engaged in coercive sales tactics, although it suggested that some of the company's practices may have been "unfair." Despite potentially "unfair" procedures, the court found nothing unconscionable in the substance of the agreement, and thus upheld the contract as enforceable. This decision illustrates the deference that U.S. courts frequently extend to standardised, "take-it-or-leave-it" agreements that are widespread in modern consumer transactions.