Canada: US Supreme Court Decision In Re AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion

Earlier this year, we published a bulletin on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Seidel v TELUS Communications.1 In that case, the Court considered the relationship between arbitration and class actions in the context of consumer protection law in British Columbia. The Court concluded, by a 5-4 majority, that claims under the BC Consumer Protection Act could not be waived by an arbitration clause, noting, among other things, that "private arbitral justice, because of its contractual origins, is necessarily limited."

A mere three months later, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider similar issues in Re AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion.2 In that case, the Court concluded, also by a 5-4 majority, that a California state rule deeming arbitration clauses which preclude collective proceedings to be unconscionable was pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

At first blush, Seidel suggests the possibility of waning enthusiasm for arbitration in Canada, while AT&T suggests unbridled enthusiasm for arbitration immediately south of the 49th parallel. However, just as the true meaning and impact of Seidel is likely far more nuanced than it appears on the surface, so too is there more to AT&T than first meets the eye. Indeed, the enthusiasm for arbitration expressed by the majority of the US Supreme Court could actually be said to ignore the reality and growing complexity of arbitral disputes – especially international disputes.


Vincent and Liza Concepcion purchased mobile telephone service from AT&T. Although the service was advertised as including "free" phones, the Concepcions were charged sales tax on their phones (calculated on the basis of the phones' retail value). They filed a complaint against AT&T in the Federal Court for the Southern District of California. Their complaint was consolidated with a putative class action alleging, among other things, that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud. The mobile phone service contract between the Concepcions and AT&T provided for arbitration of all disputes and precluded class proceedings. AT&T accordingly moved to compel the Concepcions to submit their claims to individual arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration clause.

The District Court denied AT&T's motion, relying on a rule set out by the California Supreme Court in Discover Bank v Superior Court,3 which held that a class action waiver is unconscionable when:

[it is] found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a setting in which disputes [...] predictably involve small amounts of damages, and when it is alleged that the party with superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.

Under the US doctrine of pre-emption, a state law has no effect if it is contrary to federal law validly enacted within the scope of federal authority. Section 2 of the FAA provides that agreements to arbitrate are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract" (emphasis added). The question to be resolved in AT&T was therefore whether the rule in Discover Bank constituted a ground "as exist[s] at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract" within the meaning of the FAA. If it did not, then the rule under California law as articulated in Discover Bank was pre-empted by section 2 of the FAA. The District Court found that the class arbitration waiver in the contract between AT&T and the Concepcions was unconscionable, and that California law in the matter was not pre-empted by the FAA. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision.

The decision of the US Supreme Court

In the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia held, for the majority, that section 2 of the FAA pre-empts the Discover Bank rule. He found that the saving clause in section 2 of the FAA permits generally applicable contract defences – such as fraud, duress or unconscionability – but nothing like the Discover Bank rule, which derives its significance "from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue." Justice Scalia explained as follows:

An obvious illustration of this point would be a case finding unconscionable or unenforceable as against public policy consumer arbitration agreements that fail to provide for judicially monitored discovery. The rationalizations for such a holding are neither difficult to imagine nor different in kind from those articulated in Discover Bank. A court might reason that no consumer would knowingly waive his right to full discovery, as this would enable companies to hide their wrongdoing. Or the court might simply say that such agreements are exculpatory—restricting discovery would be of greater benefit to the company than the consumer, since the former is more likely to be sued than to sue. See Discover Bank, supra, at 161, 113 P. 3d, at 1109 (arguing that class waivers are similarly one-sided). And, the reasoning would continue, because such a rule applies the general principle of unconscionability or public-policy disapproval of exculpatory agreements, it is applicable to "any" contract and thus preserved by §2 of the FAA. In practice, of course, the rule would have a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements; but it would presumably apply to contracts purporting to restrict discovery in litigation as well.

[...] Such examples are not fanciful, since the judicial hostility towards arbitration that prompted the FAA had manifested itself in "a great variety" of "devices and formulas" declaring arbitration against public policy.

Respecting the purposes of arbitration ...

Justice Scalia noted that the purpose of the FAA is to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, in order to facilitate streamlined proceedings. He stated that section 2 of the FAA reflects both a liberal federal policy favouring arbitration – which reduces costs and increases the speed of proceedings – and the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. Justice Scalia explained:

The point of affording parties discretion in designing arbitration processes is to allow for efficient, streamlined procedures tailored to the type of dispute. It can be specified, for example, that the decisionmaker be a specialist in the relevant field, or that proceedings be kept confidential to protect trade secrets. And the informality of arbitral proceedings is itself desirable, reducing the cost and increasing the speed of dispute resolution.

He concluded that the FAA cannot be read as creating an exception that undermines its basic purpose.

... only for individual arbitral proceedings?

In order to better understand the majority's reasoning for concluding that the Discover Bank decision undermines the FAA's purpose, it is useful to consider the impact of the California rule. Recall that the judge-made rule deeming certain arbitration clauses to be unconscionable is predominantly concerned with the issue of a contractual waiver of collective, or class, proceedings. The implication of invoking the Discover Bank rule, therefore, is not necessarily that a class action will proceed in court. Instead the effect of the remedy will often be to allow any party to such consumer contracts to demand classwide arbitration, a procedure that has been referred to as "uniquely American."4

Justice Scalia stated that classwide arbitration is not, however, the sort of arbitration that the FAA seeks to encourage, and that a rule protecting such a procedure is therefore inconsistent with the federal statute. In the majority's opinion, class arbitration forfeits the principal advantage of arbitration — its informality — making the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment. In the view of the majority, class arbitration is fundamentally different from, and less efficacious than, individual arbitration; simply put, it is not arbitration of the sort with which the FAA is concerned or that it seeks to promote.

The minority of the US Supreme Court disagreed with this assessment, noting as follows in a dissent penned by Justice Breyer:

The majority compares the complexity of class arbitration with that of bilateral arbitration. [...] And it finds the former more complex. [...] But, if incentives are at issue, the relevant comparison is not "arbitration with arbitration" but a comparison between class arbitration and judicial class actions. [...]

AAA statistics "suggest that class arbitration proceedings take more time than the average commercial arbitration, but may take less time than the average class action in court." AAA Amicus Brief 24 (emphasis added). Data from California courts confirm that class arbitrations can take considerably less time than in-court proceedings in which class certification is sought. Compare ante, at 14 (providing statistics for class arbitration), with Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Class Certification in California: Second Interim Report from the Study of California Class Action Litigation 18 (2010) (providing statistics for class-action litigation in California courts). And a single class proceeding is surely more efficient than thousands of separate proceedings for identical claims. Thus, if speedy resolution of disputes were all that mattered, then the Discover Bank rule would reinforce, not obstruct, that objective of the Act. [emphasis in original]


As in Seidel, the dissent in AT&T shines a harsh light on the reasoning of the majority. Viewed in that light, it might seem that according to the majority of the US Supreme Court, the FAA harks back to a simpler time and is exclusively concerned with a type of arbitration that is at odds with modern commercial and legal realities. That type of arbitration, as articulated by the majority in AT&T, is arguably alien to the type of highly complex, often multi-party arbitral proceedings that are increasingly common today. Indeed, it is not unheard of, especially in the context of investor-State arbitration, for arbitral proceedings to resemble something like class proceedings.

That said, just like Seidel, the AT&T decision arose in the context of a domestic consumer contract of adhesion – a far cry from the world of commercial parties and transactions in which most commercial arbitration, especially international commercial arbitration, occurs. While both decisions provide insight into the courts' attitudes towards arbitration as a system of justice, it remains to be seen whether and how the decisions will actually affect judicial attitudes towards commercial arbitration in general, and international commercial arbitration in particular, in the two countries.


1. Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15

2. 563 U.S. ___ (2011)

3. 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100 (2005)

4. See S.I. Strong, "From Class to Collective: The De-Americanization of Class Arbitration" Arbitration International (Kluwer Law International 2010) Vol. 26 Issue 4. 493-548.

Norton Rose OR LLP

Norton Rose OR LLP is a member of Norton Rose Group, a leading international legal practice offering a full business law service to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia Pacific, Canada, Africa and the Middle East.

The Group's lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across borders to support clients anywhere in the world. The Group is strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

Norton Rose Group has more than 2600 lawyers operating from 39 offices in Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.

Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose OR LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.