May 20, 2011
Commentary on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
We covered earlier the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. Splitting 5-4, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act prevented the consumers from relying on state-law unconscionability principles in challenging a contractual waiver of the right to arbitrate disputes on a classwide basis. There’s been a lot of commentary on the case in the ensuing weeks. Here are some links:
Nan Aron, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: The Corporate Court Does it Again, at the Huffington Post.
Aaron Bruhl (Houston), AT&T’s Long Game on Unconscionability, at PrawfsBlawg.
Aaron Bruhl (Houston), AT&T v. Concepcion and Adherence to Minority Views, at PrawfsBlawg.
Erwin Chemerinsky (UC Irvine), Supreme Court: Class (action) dismissed, Los Angeles Times Op-Ed.
Lawrence Cunningham (George Washington), SCOTUS AT&T Opinion Par for Rhetorical Course, at Concurring Opinions.
Michael Dorf (Cornell), Arbitration Decision Suggests SCOTUS Majority Are Pro-Business More Than Jurisprudential Conservatives, at Dorf on Law.
Ashby Jones, After AT&T Ruling, Should We Say Goodbye to Consumer Class Actions?, at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Nathan Koppel, Will Federal Consumer Bureau Ride to the Rescue of Class Actions?, at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Ken Klukowski, Trial lawyers lose to arbitration law in Supreme Court, Washington Examiner Op-Ed.
New York Times Editorial, Gutting Class Action
Opposing Views of Court's Ruling on Class Actions, Letters to the Editor, New York Times, from Arthur Miller (NYU) and Andrew Pincus.
Larry Ribstein (Illinois), Arbitration, preemption, and regulatory coordination, at Truth on the Market.
Lawrence Schonbrun, Supreme Court Ruling Is Not Bad News For Consumers, the Class Action System Is the Real Culprit, at the Huffington Post