AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Arbitration: Class: class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements: Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract,” 9 U. S. C. §2; because it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67, California’s Discover Bank rule is preempted by the FAA; Section 2’s saving clause permits agreements to be invalidated by “generally applicable contract defenses,” but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 687; in Discover Bank, the California Supreme Court held that class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable if the agreement is in an adhesion contract, disputes between the parties are likely to involve small amounts of damages, and the party with inferior bargaining power alleges a deliberate scheme to defraud; although §2’s saving clause preserves generally applicable contract defenses, it does not suggest an intent to preserve state-law rules that stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives. Cf. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861, 872. The FAA’s overarching purpose is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate informal, streamlined proceedings. Parties may agree to limit the issues subject to arbitration, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628, to arbitrate according to specific rules, Volt, supra, at 479, and to limit with whom they will arbitrate, Stolt-Nielsen, supra, at ___; class arbitration, to the extent it is manufactured by Discover Bank rather than consensual, interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration. The switch from bilateral to class arbitration sacrifices arbitration’s informality and makes the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment. And class arbitration greatly increases risks to defendants. The absence of multilayered review makes it more likely that errors will go uncorrected. That risk of error may become unacceptable when damages allegedly owed to thousands of claimants are aggregated and decided at once. Arbitration is poorly suited to these higher stakes. In litigation, a defendant may appeal a certification decision and a final judgment, but 9 U. S. C. §10 limits the grounds on which courts can vacate arbitral awards (U.S. S. Ct., 27.04.11, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, J. Scalia).

Arbitrage : actions de classe en droit de la consommation : signature d'un engagement de ne pas déposer une action de classe dans un contrat d'arbitrage impliquant des consommateurs : la loi fédérale sur l'arbitrage déclare que les conventions d'arbitrage sont valides, irrévocables et exécutoires, soumises toutefois aux motifs légaux ou équitables permettant la révocation d'un contrat. La règle californienne de Discover Bank est sans valeur juridique car contraire à la loi fédérale précitée, qui l'emporte : cette règle californienne constitue en effet un obstacle à l'accomplissement et à l'exécution des buts et objectifs du Congrès fédéral. La règle californienne soutenait que l'engagement de ne pas déposer d'action de classe dans un contrat d'arbitrage de consommation était abusif si la convention d'arbitrage était insérée dans un contrat d'adhésion, si les litiges porteront vraisemblablement sur de petits montants, et si la partie faible au contrat invoquait un schéma délibéré visant à tromper. Le transfert d'un arbitrage bilatéral à un arbitrage de classe se ferait au détriment du caractère non formel de l'arbitrage et rendrait notamment la procédure plus lente et plus coûteuse. Un arbitrage de classe augmenterait considérablement les risques pour les défendeurs. En effet, la procédure judiciaire permet de recourir contre une décision qui accorde l'action de classe et aussi contre le jugement final, tandis que les règles régissant l'arbitrage limitent les motifs permettant aux Tribunaux de renverser une sentence arbitrale.