Skip to Content
Blog

Justices Appear Skeptical of AT&T’s Arguments in Key Arbitration Case

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a key case that could dramatically limit consumers’ ability to join together in class-action lawsuits. At issue in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion is whether federal arbitration law trumps state laws that prohibit efforts to curb class-action suits. The case arose from a dispute over AT&T marketing a phone as “free,” even though it tacked on over $30 in sales tax based on the undiscounted cost of the phone. The customers brought suit to recover the $30 and sought relief on behalf of all others who were also assessed with those costs.

 

AT&T moved to compel arbitration of the customers’ dispute, arguing that the customers could not join their claim with others and had to pursue their claim on an individual basis. The consumers argued that the arbitration clause conflicted with California law, which would invalidate any arbitration agreement prohibiting class actions. The California law was designed to preserve the option of pursuing a class action in cases such as this, where the small amount of damages would likely prevent a consumer from seeking to vindicate his or her rights. As a practical matter, very few or no lawyers would take a case against AT&T to recover $30. However, lawyers would have an incentive to accept such a case if it could be pursued as a class action and the lawyers could seek recovery of that same $30 on behalf of a class of thousands of borrowers. Consumer advocates have long maintained that the class action device is a crucial weapon in helping consumers challenge unfair and deceptive trade practices.

 

The AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case was heard at the Supreme Court on November 9, 2010. Several justices on the nine-member Court seemed skeptical of the arguments made by AT&T, which arguments conflict with the vast majority of lower court rulings on the issue. Justice Scalia asked dubiously: “Are we going to tell California what it has to consider unconscionable?” In a similar tone, Justice Sotomayor asked: “We have to serve as reviewers of state law?” These questions seemed to echo the decisions reached by a number of lower courts to the effect that state law controls the enforceability of contracts, including arbitration agreements.

 

Tony Mauro discussed the arguments in the AT&T Mobility case in his article ‘Class Action on the ropes? Not likely‘ which appeared in the National Law Journal.

Free Consultation
Martin & Jones, PLLC logo

“Thank you so much for everything that you did for Gene and I in our lawsuit and trial. We appreciate all of the hard work, long hours and care that was shown to us. All of you are such special people to us. We are so fortunate to have been represented by the five of you. I hope that you got the chance to get some well deserved rest and sleep.  Thanks again for everything. Sincerely…”

Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges
Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges
Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges
Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges
Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges
Martin & Jones, PLLC. Badges

Contact Our North Carolina Personal Injury Law Firm

for a Consultation for Your Accident or Medical Malpractice Claim

Call us at 800-662-1234
Free Consultation

The law firm you choose makes a difference. If you are the victim of an accident or an illness that someone else caused, the North Carolina personal injury law firm of Martin & Jones has the depth of experience, skills and sensitivity to make your road to recovery as smooth as possible. Whether you have experience with the legal system or have never hired a medical malpractice or personal injury lawyer before, our attorneys and staff will do our best to answer your questions, provide clear advice and prepare you and your family for what to expect. If you would like more information or to meet with one of our attorneys, please fill out the form below or call us at 800.662.1234.