The fact that the font size of the relevant language may be marginally smaller than the statutory guidelines does not violate the mandate that the Release be “simple, clear, understandable and easily readable.” See, e.g., Kang v. La Fitness, 2016 WL 7476354, at *10 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2016) (finding the waiver provision in the relevant exculpatory clause was no less prominent than the remainder of the agreement where the font throughout the document was “about size 8”).
In that case, the Court stated that “[Plaintiff's] inability to speak English does not bar her from becoming contractually bound.” Kang v. LA Fitness, 2016 WL 7476354 (D.N.J., Dec. 29, 2016) (Hayden, J.) I similarly find Urena's argument to be unavailing. The exculpatory clause in question is valid and enforceable and serves to bar the instant action.