How Companies Break the Law and Escape Liability Through Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Supreme Court decisions are often puzzling. The Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepción is particularly baffling in the world of consumer rights law. In Concepción, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which favors contractual arbitration clauses, preempts state consumer protection laws. Let’s break down exactly what that means… Concepción in a Nutshell In Concepción, customers of […]

April 3, 2013

Supreme Court decisions are often puzzling. The Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepción is particularly baffling in the world of consumer rights law. In Concepción, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which favors contractual arbitration clauses, preempts state consumer protection laws. Let’s break down exactly what that means…

Concepción in a Nutshell

In Concepción, customers of AT&T brought a class action suit in a California district court alleging that AT&T’s offer of a free phone for new cell phone customers was fraudulent because the customers actually had to pay sales tax on the “free”phone. AT&T argued that their cellphone contract with their customers contained a clause that provided for arbitration of all disputes and barred any class action lawsuit. Relying on California state law, however, the District Court found the arbitration clause unconscionable because it did not allow for class wide actions. The 9th circuit agreed, and held that the Federal Arbitration Act, which makes arbitration clauses enforceable, did not preempt the California state law. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

In a landmark decision, Justice Scalia, overturned the lower court’s decision and held that the FAA preempts California’s law regarding the unconscionability of arbitration waivers. Scalia’s decision is momentous for two reasons. First, it limits a consumer’s rights to take action against a company who breaks the law. Also, Scalia uses Congress’s power and decides that the FAA, which clearly favors companies and disadvantages the consumer, trumps the California law which was enacted to protect consumers.

The Alliance for Justice Speaks Out

There are many reasons why arbitration agreements are unconscionable, and that’s what makes the Court’s decision so troubling. Alliance for Justice does a masterful job highlighting obvious instances where companies have broken the law, but have relied on Conceptión to escape liability by having their arbitration waivers enforced. The complete line of cases can be found here: https://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/att-aftermath-stories.pdf.

Why Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Violate Consumers’ Rights

  • Arbitration clauses are often hidden in fine print and contain confusing language which the average consumer has trouble comprehending.
  • Arbitration clauses are judicially inefficient. They require each consumer to go through the process of filling out paperwork and completing the necessary calls while foreclosing all class action proceedings. This process is difficult to comprehend (and time consuming!) for a consumer who has no legal training. Whereas, a class action suit allows for multiple consumers to bring a single action against a company and lets the attorney do the legal grunt work, not the consumer.
  •  Arbitration clauses allow companies to cheat and win. A company who violates the law and strategically adds an arbitration clause to its contract is allowed to settle disputes with individuals “behind closed doors.” But class action suits are public knowledge, and settlements are widely reported in the main stream media. When the public knows companies cheat, companies are more likely to be deterred from continuing to break the law.
  • Arbitration clauses create contracts of adhesion which are unreasonable because of the strong bargaining power that large companies possess. These “take it or leave it” deals further weaken the consumer’s position at the time of sale.

What Concepción Means for the Future of Class Action Litigation

Mandatory arbitration clauses should continue to be a hot-button issue for the Supreme Court if articles like these continue to be published. There could be hope for the consumer and the future of class action lawsuits, despite the presence of a contractual arbitration clause, due to of the slim 5-4 ruling in Concepción. Perhaps the Court, in the future, might be swayed by Justice Breyer’s dissent, where he asks this yet to be answered question:“Where does the majority get its contrary idea—that individual, rather than class, arbitration is a ‘fundamental attribut[e]’ of arbitration?” Consumers and class action attorneys, alike,hope that the Court will answer this question sooner than later (if at all).

Related News

March 13, 2024
The Legal 500 recognizes Seeger Weiss as a Top Firm and Inducts Co-Founder Chris Seeger into the Hall of Fame

Seeger Weiss is pleased to announce that the firm was named one of The Legal 500 Top Product Liability, Mass Tort, and Class Action Firms. Co-founder Chris Seeger was also named to The Legal 500 Plaintiff Hall of Fame. These esteemed recognitions showcase Seeger Weiss’ and Chris Seeger’s unwavering dedication to ensuring corporate responsibility and […]

Read More
February 29, 2024
Seeger Weiss’ Founding Partner Chris Seeger and Senior Partner Dave Buchanan discussed the 3M settlement and other key wins with Law360

Seeger Weiss was recently recognized as Law360’s 2023 Product Liability Group of the Year, after the firm secured multiple litigation victories, including a groundbreaking $6 billion deal to settle the massive litigation brought by veterans and service members, who claimed that 3M’s combat earplugs caused harm to their hearing. Between 1999 and 2015, 3M knowingly […]

Read More
February 23, 2024
Thirteen Seeger Weiss Partners Selected for Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers List

Seeger Weiss is proud to announce that Lawdragon recognized 13 partners — Chris Seeger, Stephen Weiss, David Buchanan, Parvin Aminolroaya, Shauna Itri, Matt Pawa, Jennifer Scullion, Chris Ayers, Jeffrey Grand, Scott Alan George, Diogenes Kekatos, Michael Rosenberg, and Caleb Seeley — on the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list. The Lawdragon 500 Leading […]

Read More