|
''AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion'', , is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court.〔〔 On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of ''Discover Bank v. Superior Court''.〔 As a result, businesses that include arbitration agreements with class action waivers can require consumers to bring claims only in individual arbitrations, rather than in court as part of a class action.〔 The decision was described by Jean Sternlight as a "tsunami that is wiping out existing and potential consumer and employment class actions"〔 and by law professor Myriam Gilles as "the real game-changer for class action litigation".〔 By April 2012, ''Concepcion'' was cited in at least 76 decisions sending putative class actions to individual arbitration.〔〔 After the decision, several major businesses introduced or changed arbitration terms in their consumer contracts (some of which were based on the consumer-friendly terms found in the AT&T Mobility agreement), although the hypothesis of massive adoption of consumer arbitration clauses following the decision has been disputed. == Background == In 2006, Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T Mobility over their mobile phone contract, contending that the cell phone company had engaged in deceptive advertising by falsely claiming that their wireless plan included free cell phones. Their suit became a class action. AT&T asked the U.S. District Court for Southern California to dismiss the suit, because AT&T's contract required the Concepcions to submit any disputes to individual arbitration rather than filing any class action lawsuits. Unlike other arbitration agreements, AT&T Mobility's arbitration agreement was designed to facilitate the pursuit of small claims in arbitration. The arbitration agreement provided that AT&T Mobility would pay the entire cost of arbitration (unless the claim was determined to be frivolous). The arbitration would take place in the county where the consumer was located, by telephone, or through document submission, and forms for the arbitration were made available on AT&T Mobility's website. The arbitrator was not limited in the damages it could award to a consumer, and if the consumer received an award greater than AT&T Mobility's last written settlement offer, the award would be increased to $7,500, and the consumer would be entitled to double attorney's fees. This led the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to state that arbitration under AT&T Mobility's agreement was "quick, easy to use, and prompts full or, as described by Plaintiffs, even excess payment to the customer ''without'' the need to arbitrate or litigate." Nevertheless, the district court declined to dismiss the suit, ruling that California law prohibits contracts that unfairly exculpate one party from its wrongdoing, such as clauses that do not allow class action lawsuits in consumer adhesion contracts where the individual damages are small. AT&T appealed the case, saying that the Federal Arbitration Act should preempt state law. On October 27, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision. AT&T, represented by Andrew J. Pincus of Mayer Brown, then appealed to the Supreme Court.〔〔 After the Supreme Court granted review, appellate lawyer Deepak Gupta of Washington, D.C. was brought in to represent the Concepcions. The Court heard oral arguments on November 9, 2010.〔〔 Justices Scalia and Sotomayor questioned Pincus (attorney for AT&T Mobility) about when unconscionability doctrines are made under state law.〔 Pincus argued that the California law was not being applied uniformly. Scalia challenged that assertion when he asked, "Are we going to tell the State of California what it has to consider unconscionable?".〔 Other justices questioned different procedural issues arising from the unconscionability discussion and the scope of the rule AT&T was proposing. Deepak Gupta, representing the Concepcions, argued that the contract AT&T imposed on Respondents was clearly unfair. He asserted that state law should be a guidepost in these questions. Some of his arguments drew criticism from Chief Justice John Roberts. Gupta concluded by arguing that California "has made a judgment that if you preclude class-wide relief... that will gut the State's substantive consumer protection laws..."〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|