Two senators introduced a bill on October 4, to prohibit wireless companies from having clauses in contracts that prohibit consumers from suing the companies because of hidden fees or other contract disputes.

Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Al Franken of Minnesota introduced the measure, which would ban the common practice of putting clauses in wireless phone and data contracts that require consumers to use binding arbitration in the case of a dispute. Continue reading “Two senators introduce bill to allow suits v. cell companies”

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, which I wrote about earlier in this blog, ruling that arbitration agreements can bar class action lawsuits. In its 5-4 decision, the Court, in effect, reversed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 36 Cal. 4^th 148, 113 P.3d 1100 (2005).  In Discover Bank, the California Supreme Court held that class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable if the agreement is an adhesion contract, disputes between the parties are likely to involve small amounts of damages, and the party with inferior bargaining power alleges a deliberate scheme to defraud.  The 5-4 majority found that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California law. Continue reading “US Supreme Court rules that arbitration agreements can bar class action lawsuits”

The US Supreme Court heard oral argument in the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case on November 10, 2010.  As we explained earlier on this blog, the class action complaint alleged that AT&T misleadingly offered a “free” phone to consumers, then charged consumers sales tax for “free” phones.  AT&T demanded individual arbitration, relying on a provision in the contract that prohibited class actions.  Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit ruled for the plaintiff by holding that the provision prohibiting class actions was unconscionable under California law.  AT&T asked the US Supreme Court to consider whether Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts state law on the unconscionability of class action arbitration waivers. Continue reading “Oral argument heard in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion”

Twenty five different amicus briefs were filed in the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case.  As mentioned earlier in this blog, the Concepcion case presents the issue of whether states retain authority to apply general principles of contract interpretation to class action waivers found in arbitration agreements. Continue reading “Twenty five amicus briefs filed in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion”

The argument in the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion case scheduled for later this week is starting to generate some attention.  Click this link to see the LA Times article published on November 5, 2010.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20101105,0,639054.column

The National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) filed an amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  That case presents the important question of whether states retain authority to apply general principles of contract interpretation to class action waivers found in arbitration agreements. The NELA brief says that the use of such waivers is becoming increasingly common in the labor and employment context, particularly in so-called “take it or leave it” contracts that employees are required to sign in exchange for employment. This undermines the important role that the class action device serves in vindicating claims of workplace discrimination, retaliation and wage & hour violations. Continue reading “NELA files amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion”