October Term 2010 · Docket 09-893
Does federal law block states from banning class action waivers in arbitration?
AT&T argues federal law voids California rules that ban class action waivers. Concepcion argues those rules survive federal preemption.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Pincus argued the Ninth Circuit allowed state law to mandate arbitration procedures. He stated the law must require the same procedure in litigation.
Gupta argued the Court is not applying California common law. He stated the issue is federal preemption, not state law interpretation.
Scalia questioned if a state can find distant arbitration unconscionable. He asked how that applies to other contracts.
Breyer asked if Discover Bank sets out the California rule. He sought confirmation on the legal standard.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
AT&T wants the Court to strike down the California rule. It seeks to enforce its class action waiver.
Concepcion wants the Court to uphold the California rule. It seeks to keep the class action waiver void.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
What each side says
AT&T argues federal law preempts state rules that favor arbitration. It claims the state rule invalidates its contract.
Concepcion argues the state rule does not favor arbitration. It claims the rule applies equally to litigation and arbitration.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if a state can find distant arbitration unconscionable. He questioned how that applies to other contracts.
Justice Breyer asked if Discover Bank sets out the California rule. He sought confirmation on the legal standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
Why it matters
This case determines if companies can force consumers into individual arbitration. It shapes the balance between federal contract law and state consumer protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.