Class Actions Targeted in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: An Interview with Prof. Pillard

Even a narrow ruling in favor of AT&T Mobility in a case before the Supreme Court regarding class action waiver in a contract clause could create more difficulty for class action proceedings, Professor Nina Pillard tells ACSblog.

Following an ACS event on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which the high court heard oral argument in yesterday, Pillard, a professor of law at Georgetown, explained why the case was before the Supreme Court - as The New York Times' Adam Liptak notes the case involves legal action over a "$30 charge for what was said to be a free mobile phone" - and why it may have an impact on class action lawsuits.

Pillard described the case as a "class action ban case in arbitration clothing." Specifically, AT&T Mobility is arguing that California's law banning waiver of class actions in contracts, including arbitration clauses, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, which as Liptak notes "generally overrides state laws unfavorable to arbitration and requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements unless state law limitation applies to all kinds of contracts."

Pillard noted that, not surprisingly, many American businesses are not "fans of class action," and AT&T Mobility in its mobile phone contract clause, which is being challenged by Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California, included a waiver of class action rights. But, Pillard said, California and many other states have laws that say companies cannot exculpate themselves in such a manner.

If the high court does find that California's law is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, even in narrow manner, a "presumption against class actions could be created," Pillard said. Watch her interview below or download a podcast of it here. Video of the entire panel discussion about the case is here.