In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Court is taking up the issue of forced-arbitration clauses, deciding whether federal law trumps state law when disputes arise. The plaintiffs in this case accuse the cell-phone provider of fraud for promising “free” cell phones and then charging for the tax on their retail value.
The company, citing an arbitration clause in the cell-phone contract, has argued that arbitration — not litigation — must be used to settle the dispute.
What’s at stake. Class-action procedures protect consumers who can’t head to court (or arbitration) on their own and are widely thought to deter marketplace abuses.
Where AARP stands. If AT&T Mobility prevails, AARP argues, “it will be a simple matter for businesses to prevent the effective enforcement of consumer rights.” Class-action litigation “levels the playing field in disputes between business and individual consumers," according to AARP, sometimes is “the only means by which consumers can vindicate their rights.”
Next ArticleRead This