Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Enforcing Class Action Waivers in Consumer Contracts


On April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that supports the increasing use of arbitration provisions in consumer contracts. The Concepcion case involved a dispute as to preemptive scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The decision emphasizes that the FAA reflects a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.” In ruling in AT&T’s favor, the Supreme Court concluded that state law cannot prohibit parties from contractually waiving class action rights in favor of individual arbitration, as that state prohibition would “stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s [pro-arbitration] objectives.”

Section 2 of the FAA makes agreements to arbitrate “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” In Concepcion, the lower courts had struck down AT&T’s arbitration agreement—finding that the prohibition against class actions included in the underlying agreement was “exculpatory” and “unconscionable” under California law. California’s Discover Bank case had previously held, ‘When the [class] waiver is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes between the contracting parties predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, . . .[such] waivers are unconscionable under California law and should not be enforced.” In Concepcion, a closely divided Court concluded that Discover Bank’s approach to class action waivers (affecting both class act litigation and class act arbitration) is irreconcilable with the FAA’s promotion of “steamlined” arbitration.

The Concepcion decision rejects the “unconscionability” rationale underlying Discover Bank, i.e., “class proceedings are necessary to prosecute small dollar claims that might otherwise slip through the legal system.” The Court effectively concluded that states cannot impose restrict arbitration agreements on policy grounds if those policies are inconsistent with the pro-arbitration objective underlying the FAA.

Concepcion does not guarantee that every class action waiver included in an arbitration agreement is enforceable in California or elsewhere. The decision notes, “States remain free to take steps addressing the concerns that attend contracts of adhesion—for example, requiring class-action-waiver provisions in adhesive arbitration agreements to be highlighted.” The Concepcion decision simultaneously emphasizes that these requirements “cannot, however, conflict with the FAA or frustrate its purpose to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms.”

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Davis Wright Tremaine LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.