AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09–893.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Citation563 U.S. 333,179 L.Ed.2d 742,131 S.Ct. 1740
Docket NumberNo. 09–893.
Decision Date27 April 2011
Parties AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Petitioner, v. Vincent CONCEPCION et ux.

563 U.S. 333
131 S.Ct.
1740
179 L.Ed.2d 742

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Petitioner,
v.
Vincent CONCEPCION et ux.

No. 09–893.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 9, 2010.
Decided April 27, 2011.


Andrew J. Pincus, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Deepak Gupta, for Respondents.

Donald M. Falk, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Neal Berinhout, Atlanta, GA, Kenneth S. Geller, Andrew J. Pincus, Evan M. Tager, Archis A. Parasharami, Kevin Ranlett, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

131 S.Ct. 1744

Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

563 U.S. 336

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (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." 9 U.S.C. § 2. We consider whether the FAA prohibits States from conditioning the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on the availability of classwide arbitration procedures.

I

In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered into an agreement for the sale and servicing of cellular telephones with AT & T Mobility LCC (AT & T).1 The contract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties' "individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding." App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.2 The agreement authorized AT & T to make unilateral amendments, which it did to the arbitration provision on several occasions. The version at issue in this case reflects revisions made in December 2006, which the parties agree are controlling.

The revised agreement provides that customers may initiate dispute proceedings by completing a one-page Notice of Dispute form available on AT & T's Web site. AT & T may

563 U.S. 337

then offer to settle the claim; if it does not, or if the dispute is not resolved within 30 days, the customer may invoke arbitration by filing a separate Demand for Arbitration, also available on AT & T's Web site. In the event the parties proceed to arbitration, the agreement specifies that AT & T must pay all costs for nonfrivolous claims; that arbitration must take place in the county in which the customer is billed; that, for claims of $10,000 or less, the customer may choose whether the arbitration proceeds in person, by telephone, or based only on submissions; that either party may bring a claim in small claims court in lieu of arbitration; and that the arbitrator may award any form of individual relief, including injunctions and presumably punitive damages. The agreement, moreover, denies AT & T any ability to seek reimbursement of its attorney's fees, and, in the event that a customer receives an arbitration award greater than AT & T's last written settlement offer, requires AT & T to pay a $7,500 minimum recovery and twice the amount of the claimant's attorney's fees.3

The Concepcions purchased AT & T service, which was advertised as including the provision of free phones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 in sales tax based on the phones' retail value. In March 2006, the Concepcions filed a complaint against AT & T in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint was later consolidated with a putative class action alleging, among other things, that AT & T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free.

In March 2008, AT & T moved to compel arbitration under the terms of its contract

131 S.Ct. 1745

with the Concepcions. The Concepcions opposed the motion, contending that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unlawfully exculpatory

563 U.S. 338

under California law because it disallowed classwide procedures. The District Court denied AT & T's motion. It described AT & T's arbitration agreement favorably, noting, for example, that the informal dispute-resolution process was "quick, easy to use" and likely to "promp[t] full or ... even excess payment to the customer without the need to arbitrate or litigate"; that the $7,500 premium functioned as "a substantial inducement for the consumer to pursue the claim in arbitration" if a dispute was not resolved informally; and that consumers who were members of a class would likely be worse off. Laster v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 2008 WL 5216255, *11–*12 (S.D.Cal., Aug.11, 2008). Nevertheless, relying on the California Supreme Court's decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100 (2005), the court found that the arbitration provision was unconscionable because AT & T had not shown that bilateral arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effects of class actions. Laster, 2008 WL 5216255, *14.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, also finding the provision unconscionable under California law as announced in Discover Bank. Laster v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 584 F.3d 849, 855 (2009). It also held that the Discover Bank rule was not preempted by the FAA because that rule was simply "a refinement of the unconscionability analysis applicable to contracts generally in California." 584 F.3d, at 857. In response to AT & T's argument that the Concepcions' interpretation of California law discriminated against arbitration, the Ninth Circuit rejected the contention that " ‘class proceedings will reduce the efficiency and expeditiousness of arbitration’ " and noted that "DiscoverBank placed arbitration agreements with class action waivers on the exact same footing as contracts that bar class action litigation outside the context of arbitration.’ " Id ., at 858 (quoting Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc ., 498 F.3d 976, 990 (C.A.9 2007) ).

We granted certiorari, 560 U.S. 923, 130 S.Ct. 3322, 176 L.Ed.2d 1218 (2010).

563 U.S. 339

II

The FAA was enacted in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. See Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). Section 2, the "primary substantive provision of the Act," Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), provides, in relevant part, as follows:

"A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2.

We have described this provision as reflecting both a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration," Moses H. Cone, supra, at 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, and the "fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract," Rent–A–Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 2776, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010). In line with these principles, courts must place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts, Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006), and enforce them according to their terms, Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v.

131 S.Ct. 1746

Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989).

The final phrase of § 2, however, permits arbitration agreements to be declared unenforceable "upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." This saving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by "generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability," but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) ; see also Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 492–493, n. 9, 107 S.Ct. 2520, 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987).

563 U.S. 340

The question in this case is whether § 2 preempts California's rule classifying most collective-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable. We refer to this rule as the Discover Bank rule.

Under California law, courts may refuse to enforce any contract found "to have been unconscionable at the time it was made," or may "limit the application of any unconscionable clause." Cal. Civ.Code Ann. § 1670.5(a) (West 1985). A finding of unconscionability requires "a ‘procedural’ and a ‘substantive’ element, the former focusing on ‘oppression’ or ‘surprise’ due to unequal bargaining power, the latter on ‘overly harsh’ or ‘one-sided’ results." Armendariz v. Foundation Health Pyschcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 114, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 690 (2000) ; accord, Discover Bank, 36 Cal.4th, at 159–161, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 113 P.3d, at 1108.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3663 practice notes
  • Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat' Ass'n, Nos. 09–16703
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 7, 2012
    ...No. 09–17603, we consider whether, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA” or “Act”) preempts California's state law rule prohibiting the arbitration of ......
  • Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., Civ. No. 16-5939 (KM) (JBC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • December 7, 2018
    ...Ltd. P'ship v. Clark , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1426, 197 L.Ed.2d 806 (2017) (quoting AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 341, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) ) (sarcasm in original). So the court, in applying contract law, must keep in mind not only the gener......
  • Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, No. CV-11-931-PHX-LOA
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • October 4, 2011
    ...derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ____ U.S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745-47 (2011) (The FAA's "[s]aving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by 'generally applicable contract defenses.......
  • Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos., Civil Action No. 17–1863 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 25, 2018
    ...favoring arbitration and the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract," AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and "strongly favors the enforcement of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3594 cases
  • Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat' Ass'n, Nos. 09–16703
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 7, 2012
    ...No. 09–17603, we consider whether, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011), the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA” or “Act”) preempts California's state law rule prohibiting the arbitration of clai......
  • Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., Civ. No. 16-5939 (KM) (JBC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • December 7, 2018
    ...Centers Ltd. P'ship v. Clark , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1426, 197 L.Ed.2d 806 (2017) (quoting AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 341, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) ) (sarcasm in original). So the court, in applying contract law, must keep in mind not only the g......
  • Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, No. CV-11-931-PHX-LOA
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • October 4, 2011
    ...or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ____ U.S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745-47 (2011) (The FAA's "[s]aving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by 'generally applicable contract defenses.'......
  • Sakyi v. Estée Lauder Cos., Civil Action No. 17–1863 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 25, 2018
    ...policy favoring arbitration and the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract," AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and "strongly favors the enforcement of agreem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 firm's commentaries
  • International Arbitration Comparative Guide
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 10, 2022
    ...law provision in the contract within which the arbitration agreement was contained. Indeed, it was held in AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion 563 US 333, 334 (2011) that the FAA operates on the presumption that it overrides state laws; therefore, if parties wish to adopt the law of a particular......
  • A CLOSER LOOK: AVOIDING A “MASS”-IVE ARBITRATION PROBLEM
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 2, 2022
    ...agreements contained class-action waivers that plaintiffs argued made arbitration uneconomical. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Arbitration agreements also increasingly featured delegation clauses, which required arbitrators (and not courts) to resolve “gatewa......
  • Sullivan & Cromwell Discusses Supreme Court Decision on Exemption to Federal Arbitration Act
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 21, 2022
    ...name="_edn23" target="_blank" rel="noopener">[23] Id. [24] Id. [25] Id. at *7-8. [26] Id. at *8 (quoting AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011)). [27] Id. at *4 & n. 1. [28] Id. at *5, n. 2 (citing Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904, 915 (9th Cir. 2020), and Walla......
  • Sullivan & Cromwell Discusses Supreme Court Decision on Exemption to Federal Arbitration Act
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 21, 2022
    ...name="_edn23" target="_blank" rel="noopener">[23] Id. [24] Id. [25] Id. at *7-8. [26] Id. at *8 (quoting AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011)). [27] Id. at *4 & n. 1. [28] Id. at *5, n. 2 (citing Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904, 915 (9th Cir. 2020), and Walla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Fee-Shifting in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 Nbr. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...including the consumer's attorney fees, on the institutional defendant are also common. See, eg. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 337 (2011) (describing arbitration scheme in cellular telephone consumer (78) The argument in favor of imposing reciprocal fee-shifting in this......
  • The Mischief Rule
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 109-5, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...v. Trent, 77 S.W. 390, 392 (Ky. 1903). For a possible example that is more recent and controversial, see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 355 (2011) (stating that the Federal Arbitration Act “was enacted in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration ......
  • DIGITAL CIVIL PROCEDURE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...Atlantic Marine and the Future of Party Preference, 66 HASTINGS L.J. 675, 677 (2015). (18) See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344-45, 352 (2011); Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1619, 1621-22 (19) For a careful recent analysis and a review of this literature, ......
  • IN HONOR OF STEPHEN BURBANK: BEYOND THE FOREST AND THE TREES.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...(76) See, e.g., Fee Schedule, S. DIST. OF ILL., https://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/AttyFeeSchedule.aspx [https://perma.cc/3SHE-Y9XT]. (77) 563 U.S. 333 (78) Id. at 336. (79) Id. at 340 (quoting Discover Bank v. Superior Ct., 113 P.3d 1100, 1110 (Cal. 2005)). (80) Id. at 351. (81) Id. at 351-52. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT