Alert
Close

Watch the NASCAR race on Saturday at the Bristol Motor Speedway. Join the Drive to End Hunger!

Donate

Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read

about
Foundation

AARP Foundation is dedicated to serving vulnerable people 50+ by creating solutions that help them secure the essentials and achieve their best life. Read

 

Foundation Overview
Governance
Executive Leadership
Financial Information
Diversity Practices

AT&T v. Concepcion

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide If Class Actions May Be Banned by Arbitration

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide if a court can refuse to enforce a class action ban in a cell phone contract. The lower court applied state contract law when it ruled an arbitration provision prohibiting class actions cannot be enforced because forcing consumers to file individual cases for small claims means most consumers will never seek to recover illegally charged fees. AARP argued in a brief filed with the court that without class actions, businesses are able to keep enormous amounts of ill-gotten gains. Allowing class action bans creates a profit incentive for businesses to cheat their customers and limits the enforcement of important consumer protection laws.

Background


An increasing number of contracts include forced arbitration clauses. Originally designed for businesses to bring in experts to help resolve business-to-business disputes quickly, outside the court system, arbitration has become ubiquitous in contracts between businesses and people and now routinely can be found in credit card, employment, cell/internet, home construction, medical and nursing home admission contracts. Arbitration does not provide the same protection as court proceedings, can be prohibitively expensive and arbitration clauses often include deceptively subtle waivers of important legal rights.

Moreover, many arbitration clauses specifically ban class actions. Class actions enable the resolution of similar claims by large numbers of people in one single proceeding. They often provide the only way to redress consumer complaints in which individual claims are small (and therefore not worth the individual's time and legal fees to challenge) but which aggregate into huge ill-gotten profits for the wrongdoer. For example, a business with millions of customers can make huge profits by overcharging each customer a few dollars a month. Businesses know that forcing all claims to be heard individually means most people will never seek refunds of money illegally charged. Many people will never notice they are being overcharged, and others will not seek redress through legal action. Who would sue over a few hundred dollars when the legal fees would cost thousands?

The Dispute


The Concepcions responded to an advertisement for a free cell phone with a service contract. When they signed up, they were charged approximately $35 in taxes. They filed a class action complaint to recover the taxes collected, alleging that AT&T violated California law by advertising a free phone then charging the taxes.

While the Concepcion's lawsuit was pending, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a separate lawsuit with similar claims brought by different plaintiffs against a different company that an arbitration provision requiring aggrieved customers to file individual claims in arbitration was unenforceable. The contract the Concepcions signed had a similar arbitration provision so it was unenforceable pursuant to the Ninth Circuit decision.

But nine months after the Concepcions filed their lawsuit, AT&T sent notice of a change in contract terms of the arbitration agreement. The change provided that if the customers who filed arbitration were able to recover more than the settlement offered by AT&T, AT&T would add a bonus of $7,500 to the recovery. AT&T then sought to compel the Concepcions to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. The court ruled that the arbitration provision remained unenforceable under California law even with the monetary bonus because forced individual arbitration limits the number of claims that would be brought by injured customers.
 

Search Legal Advocacy

Find
Legal Cases

Find the most recent cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases.

Make a Difference. Donate.

Make a Difference — support programs that help vulnerable seniors who are struggling to make ends meet.