FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 20, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 61 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 55 1- CV-PAS JAM ES PENDERGAST, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f al l o th ers si m il arl y

si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SPRI NT NEXT EL CORPORATION, Defen da nt , SPRI NT SOLUTIONS, INC., SPRI NT SPECTRUM L.P., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st20 , 20 12 )Befo re CARNES a ndHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es , andGOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t J am es Pen de rg as t, a fo rm er wi rel es s t el ep ho ne cu st om er of Defen dant s- App el le es Sp rin t So lu ti on s, In c. an d S pr in t Sp ect rum , L.P., (co ll ect iv el y , “ Sp rin t” ), su edSp rin t o n b eh al f of hi m se lf a nda si m il arl y

si tu at ed cl as s, al le gi ng Sp rin t ch arg edim pr op er ro am in g fe es for

cal ls pl acedwithi n Sp rin t’s co ve rag e are as . Spri ntm ov edto co m pe l arbi tra ti on pu rs uantto th e Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et s eq . (“ FAA”), as pro vi de d b y th e Term s
an d C on di ti on s o f Sp rin t’s s erv ic e co nt ractwith P en de rg as t. The di stric t co urt g ran te d S pr in t’s m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on an d di sm is se d t he cas e. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the arb it rat io n a ndcla ss act io n waiv er p ro vi si on s i n t he Term s an d C on di ti on s ar e v al idan d e nf or ceab le
. Pen de rg as t ap pe al ed . Pen de rg as t ar gu edth atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s
un co ns ci on ab le un de r Fl or id a la w, th e arb it rat io n c laus e an d c la ss act io n wai ve r cl au se are n otsev erab le , andth us th e in va li di ty of th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s fa ta l to th e arb it rat io n c laus e as well
.

Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International TradeJ udg e, * sitti ngby designation. 2On J anua ry 4, 2 01 0, thi s C ou rt f

ou ndth atres ol ut io n o f th e ap pe al de pe nd ed
on un se tt le d que st io ns of F lo rid a la w andcert ifi edfou r qu es ti on s t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt. Pen de rg as t v . Spr in t Nex te l Co rp ., 59 2 F .3d11 19 , 11 43 –4 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ac cep te d c ert ifi cat io n o f th e que st io ns . On Ap ril 27 , 20 11 , aft er o ral arg um en t i n t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt b ut be fo re i t i ss ue d ade ci si on , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d eci de d AT&T Mo bi li ty L LC v. Co nc ep ci on , — U.S. —, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 74 0 (2 01 1) . In Co nc ep ci on , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the FAA pre em pt edCal ifo rn ia ’s jud ic ia l ru le onth e unc on sc io nabi li ty of cl as s ac ti on waiv ers in co ns um er
co nt ract s. Id . at 1 75 3. On M ay 4, 2 01 1, Sp rin t m ov edth is Co urt t o wi th dr aw th e certi fie d qu es ti on s an d t o a ffi rm

su m m ari ly in l ig htof C on cep ci on . Outof d efer en ce t o o ur st at e co urt co ll eag ue s, we d en ie d S pr in t’s m ot io n s o t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d h av e th e o pp ortu ni ty to d eci de whet he r itwis he d t o a ns wer the qu es ti on s we c ert ifi edor d ecl in e juri sd ic ti on an d re tu rnth e cas e to us forfurth er pr oc eed in gs in li gh t o f Co nc ep ci on . Sp rin t m ov edth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o d ecl in e juri sd ic ti on . On Ju ly 17 , 20 12 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt g ran te d S pr in t’s m ot io n a ndth e cas e returne d

3to th is Co urt. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t g ran ti ng Sp rin t’s m ot io n t o c om

pe l ar bi tra ti on . I. BACKG ROUND The factua l b ack gr ou ndis setforth inde ta il inou r ear li er o pi ni on . See Pen de rg as t, 5 92 F.3dat 1 12 1– 31 . W e rep eaton ly the m os t p ert in en t d et ai ls he re. A. Serv ic e Con tra cts Betw een Pen derg as t an d Spri nt InAug us t 2 00 1, Pe nd erg as t b ou gh t a wi rel es s t el ep ho ne fro m Sp rin t, ag reed to a two -y ear s erv ic e co ntractforSp rin t wi rel es s s erv ic e, an d b eg anus in g S pr in t wire le ss servi ce. The co nt ractin cl ud edSp rin t’s the n- ap pl ic ab le Term s an d Co nd it io ns of S erv ic e. At tha t t im e, Sp rin t’s Ma y 20 01 Term s an d C on di ti on s were i n e ffec t, an d t he y

co nt ai ne d a“ ch an ge s t o a gr eem en t” claus e p ro vi di ng th at : (1 ) Sp rin t co ul d c hang e th e te rm s o f it s ag reem en t wi th Pen de rg as t atan y ti m e; (2) Pen de rg as t ac cep te d s uc h c ha ng es by usi ng hi s p ho ne on or a fte r th e ch an ge s’ effe ct iv e d at e; an d (3 ) Pen de rg as t co ul d t erm in at e h is servi ce i f he di d n otwis h t o
acce ptth e ch an ge s. Th e co ntractpro vi de d P en de rg as t wi th fou rte enda y s af te r act iv at in g h is ph on e to term in at e Sp rin t s erv ic e wit ho utpe na lt y . The May 200 1 Term s an d C on di ti on s al so co nt ai ne d a n a rb it rat io n c laus e th atrequi redarb it rat io n o f di sp ut es be twee n P en de rg as t an d S pr in t an d s ta te d t ha t th e FAA go ve rn edwhet he r a cl ai m was s ub ject t o a rb it rat io n: 4ARBIT RATIO N O F DI SPUTES. ANY C LAIM, CONTROVERSY

OR DISPUTE, W HETHER SOUNDING IN CONTRACT, STATUTE, O R T O RT , IN CLUD IN G FR AU D , MI SR

E PR E SE N T ATION, OR ANY O T H E R L E GA L T H E O RY , RELA T E D D IR E CT L Y O R IN D IR

E CT L Y TO THE SERVICES
. . . SHALL BE RESOLVED BY ARBITRATION AS PRESC RIBED IN THIS SECTION. THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, NOT STATE LAW, GOVERNS THE QUESTION OF W HETHER A CLAIM IS S U B JECT TO ARBITRATION. The May 200 1 Term s an d C on di ti on s d idno t i nc lu de a cl as s ac ti on waiv er. InJu ly 200 5, Pe nd erg as t b ou gh t a n ew ph on e fro m Sp rin t an d s ig ne d ane w
co nt ractwith S pr in t, a two- y ear P CS Adva nt ag e Agr eem en t. Pen de rg as t’s ac co un t
nu m be r wit h S pr in t re m ai ne d t he same. 1 The Ju ne 20 04 Term s an d C on di ti on s wer e in effe ctwhen Pen de rg as t
en te redin to th e PCS Adv an ta ge Agre em en t. The Ju ne 20 04 Term s an d Co nd it io ns pro vi de d t ha t: (1) Pen de rg as t ac cep te d t he Term s an d C on di ti on s b y
us in g o r pa y in g fo r Sp rin t s erv ic e; (2) Sp rin t co ul d c ha ng e th e Term s an d Co nd it io ns at a ny tim e, an d u si ng or p ay in g fo r se rv ic e o n o r aft er the da te of t he ch an ge co ns ti tu te d a ccep ta nc e o f th e ch an ge ; an d (3 ) Pen de rg as t co ul d t erm in at e

Penderg ast bought a total of four phones fr om Sprint from 2001 to 2006. Each time, 1 Sprint gave him a copy

of its then-cur

rent Te rms and Conditions. P enderg ast’s monthly bills consistently

told Penderg ast that the cur rent Te rms and Conditions were a vailable on Sprint’s website. 5th e ag reem en t wi th ou t p en al ty w it hi n 3 0 d ay s af te r m at eri al , adv ers e ch an ge s wer e
m ad e. The Ju ne 20 04 Term s an d C on di ti on s al so co nt ai ne d a n a rb it rat io n c laus e th atrequi redarb it rat io n o f al l d is pu te s ex cep t fo r th os e wit hi n s m al l cl ai m s co urt juri sd ic ti on . Im

po rta nt ly, th e n ew arb it rat io n c laus e in cl ud eda cl as s ac ti on waiv er. The Ju ne 20 04 arb it rat io n c laus e st at ed : MANDATORY ARBIT RAT IO N OF DISPUTE S: INSTEAD OF SUING IN COUR T, Y O U AND SPRI NT AGREE TO ARBITRATE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS , C O N TR OVERSIES OR DISPUTES AGAINST EACH OTHER A R I S ING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS A GREEMENT
. . . . THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT APPLIES TO THIS AGREEM EN T AND ITS PROVISI ONS, NOT ST A T E L AW , GOVERN ALL QUESTIO N S O F WH E T H E R A CLA IM IS SUBJ ECT TO ARBITRATION. THIS P ROVISION DOES NOT PREVENT EITHER YOU OR SPRI N T FROM BRINGING APPROPR IATE CLAIMS IN SM ALL CLAIMS COURT . . . . YOU AND SPRI N T F U RTHER AGREE THAT NEITHER SPRI NT N O R Y OU W ILL JOIN ANY CLAIM W ITH THE CLAIM OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY IN A LAW SUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING; THAT NO CLAIM EITHER SPRI NT OR YOU HAS AGAINST THE OTHER SHALL BE RESOLVED ON A CLASS-WIDE B A S IS; AND THAT NEITHER SPRI NT NOR YOU W ILL ASSERT A CLAIM IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF ANYONE ELSE. .
. .

. . . . If an y po rti on of th is Man da to ry A rb i tra ti on of Dis pu te s se ct io n is de te rm in ed to be in va li d or un en fo rceabl e, th e rem ai nd er of th e Sect io n rem ai ns in ful l fo rce a ndeffe ct .

6InJan uary 20 07 , Spr in t ag ai n c ha ng edit s Term s an d C on di ti on s. As wit h 2 th e p rev io us Term s an d C on di ti on s, the Janua ry 20 07 ve rs io n p ro vi de d t ha t u se of
orpa ym en t fo r Sp rin t s erv ic e co ns ti tu te d a ccep ta nc e, an d t ha t Sp rin t co ul d c ha ng e th e Term s an d C on di ti on s u ni la te ral ly butth e cu st om er co ul d t erm in at e h is or h er
co nt ract . The J anua ry

20 07 Term s an d C on di ti on s co nt ai ne d a n e xp an de d

“ di sp ut e res ol ut io n” pro vi si on . Accor di ng to th is pro vi si on , all cla im s n ot pr op erl y tri ab le insm al l cl ai m s co urt m us t b e arb it rat ed . The d is pu te res ol ut io n pr ov is io n a ls o c on ta in edbo th (1) a cl as s ac ti on waiv er an d (2 ) a n on -s ev erab il it y pr ov is io n s ta ti ng th atif t he cla ss act io n wai ve r were h el d t o b e u ne nf or ceab le , th e ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e d idno t ap pl y : DISPUTE RESOL UTI ON We Ag ree T o Fi rs t Con ta ct Ea ch Ot her W ith Any Di sp utes W e each ag ree to fir st co nt act each ot he r with an y di sp ut es an d pr ov id e a wri tt ende sc rip ti on of t he pro bl em . . . . In st ea d Of Su in g I n Cou rt, We Ea ch Ag ree T o Arb itr at e Dis pute s W e each ag ree to fin al ly se tt le al l di sp ut es (as de fin ed an d subjec t to an y sp eci fic ex cep ti on s b el ow) on ly by arb it rat io n . . . . (6 ) We e ac h ag ree no t to purs ue ar bi tra tio n on a cl as sw id e ba si s. We e ac h a gr ee th at an y ar bi tra tio n w il l be so le ly betw een y ou an d us (no t bro ug ht on beha lf of or to ge ther w ith an ot her in di vi dua l’ s cl ai m) . If fo r an y rea so n an y co urt or ar bi tra to r ho ld s tha t thi s Sprint’s Dece mber 2006 monthly bill gave advanc e notice of the cha ng e and told 2 Penderg ast that the re vised Ter ms and Conditions wer e ava ilable on Sprint’s website.

7res tri cti on is unco ns ci on ab le or unen fo rcea bl e, then ou r ag reement

to ar bi tra te do es n’t ap pl y an d the di sp ute m us t be bro ug ht in co urt.

. . . . Ex cept io ns To Our Ag reement To Arbi tra te Di sp utes Eithe r of us m ay bri ng a qu al ifyin g c la im

in sm al l cl ai m s co urt. . . . The Janua ry

20 07 Term s an d C on di ti on s co nt ai ne d asec on d c la ss act io n wai ve r
ou ts id e an d i m

m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th e d is pu te res ol ut io n p ro vi si on : No Cl as s Act io ns TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED B Y LAW , W E EACH WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO PURSUE DISPUTES ON A CLASSWIDE BASIS ; THAT IS, TO EITHER JOIN A CLAIM W ITH THE CLAIM OF ANY OTHER P ER S O N O R EN T I T Y , O R A S S ER T A C LA I M I N A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON B EHALF OF ANY ONE EL SE IN ANY LAW SUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING. InJan uary

20 08 , Spr in t ag ai n a m en de d i ts Term s an d C on di ti on s. The 3 Ja nu ary 20 08 Term s an d C on di ti on s re le va ntto Pen de rg as t’s ap pe al are n ot
m at eri al ly diff

eren t fr om

th e Janu ary 20 07 Term s an d C on di ti on s. In pa rti cu la r, th e Ja nu ary 20 08 Term s an d C on di ti on s s ti ll co nt ai ne d a n a rb it rat io n p ro vi si on , a cl as s ac ti on waiv er, an d ano n- se ve rab il it y pro vi si on st at in g t ha t: (1) th e p art ie s

“ ag ree n otto pu rs ue arb it rat io n o n acla ss wid e b as is ”; (2) th e p art ie s “ ag ree tha t
an y arb it rat io n wi ll be so le ly betweeny ouan d u s (n otbro ug hton be ha lf o f or to ge th er wi th an ot he r in di vi du al ’s cla im )”; an d (3 ) if th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er were Sprint ag ain provided a dvancenotice of the Terms a nd Conditi ons amendment in the 3 prec edingmonth’s bill—i n this case, the D ece mber 2007 bill. The January 2008 Terms a

nd Conditi ons beca

me ef fec tive on J anuar

y 1, 2008. 8he ldto be un co ns ci on ab le or u ne nf or ceab le , “ ou r ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e d oe sn ’t ap pl y an d t he di sp ut e m

us t b e b ro ug htin co urt.” Pen de rg as t was a Sp rin t cu st om er fro m Aug us t 6 , 20 01 un ti l J anua ry 20 , 20 08 , whi ch was a fte r th e eff ect iv e d at e o f th e Ja nu ary 20 08 Term s an d Co nd it io ns . B. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs On Fe brua ry

29 , 20 08 , Pen de rg as t fi le d t he pre se ntact io n i n d is tri ctco urt. Pen de rg as t’s co m

pl ai nt , fil edon be ha lf o f a cl as s, al le ge d S pr in t i m pr op erl y ch arg edit s cu st om ers roa m in g fe es whi le th ey were p hysic al ly in Sp rin t’s
co ve rag e are a. Pen de rg as t as se rte d c la im s o f br each of c on tra ct , neg li ge nt
m is rep res en ta ti on , andvi ol at io n o f th e Fl or id a Dece pt iv e an d Un fai r Trad e Prac ti ces Act (“ FDUTPA”). Pen de rg as t es ti m at edhi s ac tu al in di vi du al da m ag es to be ab ou t $ 20
. Sp rin t m ov edto co m

pe l arbi tra ti on pu rs uantto th e FAA an d the Jan ua ry 20 08 Term s an d C on di ti on s. In res po ns e, Pen de rg as t ar gu edth atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er was un co ns ci on ab le an d u ne nf or ceab le un de r Fl or id a la w, andth eref or e pu rs ua ntto th e n on -s ev erab il it y pro vi si on , th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on di d n otap pl y . 4

The pa rties agree d, and the district cour t found, that Florida

law g overne d the 4 enfor cea bility of the c lass action wa iver. 9The di stric t co urt g ran te d S pr in t’s m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on an d di sm is se d t he cas e. The d is tri ctco urt re as on edth at , un de r Fl or id a la w, Pen de rg as t
ne ed edto sh ow t ha t the cla ss act io n wai ve r was bo th pro cedur al ly and
subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le to ren de r itun en fo rceabl e. Becaus e th e d is tri ct
co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the cla ss act io n wai ve r was no t p ro cedur al ly unc on sc io nabl e, itde te rm in edth atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er was en fo rceabl e wit ho utreac hi ng th e is su e o f subs ta nt iv e u nc on sc io nabi li ty. Pen de rg as t ap pe al ed
. C. Certi fic at io n to Flo ri da Supre m e Cou rt a nd Retu rn to thi s Co urt Inou r pr ev io us op in io n i n t hi s ca se , we con si de redwhet he r th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er was un co ns ci on ab le un de r Fl or id a la w. Pend erg as t, 5 92 F.3dat 1 13 3– 42
. Inth e co ur se of d oi ng so , we con cl ud ed : (1 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atFlo rid a u nc on sc io nabi li ty law requi reda sh owi ng of b ot h pr oc edur al an d s ub st an ti ve un co ns ci on ab il it y fora co nt ractua l p ro vi si on to be he ld
un co ns ci on ab le ; b ut(2) Flo rid a la w was u ns et tl edas t o wh ethe r co urts sh ou ld

“ ev al ua te bo th pro ng s s im ul ta ne ou sl y

in a ba la nc in g e xe rci se ,” orwhethe r co urts
m ay “ st op th e an al y si s af

te r fi nd in g e it he r pr oc edur al or s ub st an ti ve
un co ns ci on ab il it y

to be in de pe nd en tl y

lac ki ng .” Id . at 1 13 4. We th eref or e cert ifi edth is qu es ti onto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Id . at 1 13 5.

10Nex t, we fo un d i t “ no t cl ear wh ethe r Sp rin t’s co ntractwith [P en de rg as t] is

pr oc edur al ly unc on sc io nabl e u nd er Fl or id a la w,” so we cert ifi edth atqu es ti on to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt as well . Id. As t o s ub st an ti ve un co ns ci on ab il ity , we fo un d i t “ di ffi cu ltto say in t he se factua l ci rcu m st an ces th atno reas on ab le
co ns um er wo ul d h av e m ad e th is ag reem en t o r th atitis so un fai r as to be
subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le pe r se .” Id . at 1 14 1. Bu t i n l ig htof o urcert ifi cat io n of th e p rece di ng qu es ti on s, we ce rti fie d t he subs tant iv e u nc on sc io nabi li ty que st io n al so . Id. at11 42
. Pen de rg as t co nt en de d t ha t the ch an ge s- to -ag reem en t cl au se als o i s
subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le , arg ui ng th at“ Fl or id a la w do es no t p erm it
m od ifi cat io n o f co nt ract s wi th ou t n ew co ns id erat io n a ndth e m utua l co ns en t o f th e pa rti es .” Id . at 1 14 2. We po in te d o ut , ho wev er, tha t: (1) Flo rid a la w do es

“pe rm it [] con tra ctm od ifi cat io ns if t he re i s co ns en t an d am eet in g o f th e m in ds of th e in it ia l co nt ract in g p art ie s” ; (2 ) th e ch an ge s- to -ag reem en t cl au se was i nc lu de d in th e in it ia l t erm s o f Pen de rg as t’s 2 00 1 a nd20 05 co nt ract s wi th Sp rin t an d was

“ fu ll y supp orte d b y

co ns id erat io n a t tha t t im e”; (3) Sp rin t’s ri gh t t o m od ify the Term s an d C on di ti on s was de pe nd en t upo n P en de rg as t’s ag reem en t b y us in g o r pa y in g fo r Sp rin t’s s erv ic e; an d (4 ) Pen de rg as t was all owe d t o c an cel hi s s erv ic e withi n 3 0 d ay s i f he di d n otwantto acce ptth e ch an ge s. Id . Neverth el es s, b ecau se 11th e subs ta nt iv e unc on sc io nabi li ty of th e ch an ge s- to -ag reem en t cl au se “ in vo lv e[d ]

th e sa m e Term s an d C on di ti on s as th e o th er i ss ue s, we i nc lu de [d ] itas we ll in ou r cert ifi cat io n.” Id. Pen de rg as t’s fi na l ar gu m en t was th atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s v oi d b ecau se itfru st rat es th e rem ed ia l p ur po se s o f th e FDUTPA. Alth ou gh Flo rid a la w

“ arg uabl y ” supp orte d S pr in t’s p os it io n t ha t the cla ss act io n wai ve r do es no t fru st rat e th e FDUTPA’s rem ed ia l p ur po se s, the law was “un se tt le d.” Id. at11 43
. Thu s, we “ [d id ] no t d eci de th e is su e o f whe th er Sp rin t’s cl as s ac ti on waiv er i s v oi d fo r an y ot he r rea so n andin cl ud e[d ] th is is su e, to o, i n o urcert ifi cat io n t o t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt.” Id
. Insu m , we cert ifi edfou r qu es ti on s t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt: (1 ) Mu st Fl or id a c o u rt s ev al ua te bo th pr oc edur al an d subs ta nt iv e un co ns ci on ab il it y si m

ul ta n e o u s ly in a ba lanc in g or sl id in g sc al e ap pr oa ch , or m ay co urts co ns id er ei th er pr oc edur al or subs ta nt iv e un co ns ci on ab il it y in de pe nd en tl y an d co nc lu de th ei r an al y si s if ei th e r on e is lac ki ng ? (2 ) Is th e cl as s act io n waiv er pr ov is io n in Pl ai nt iff’s co nt ract with Sp rin t pr oc edur al ly unc on sc io nabl e u nd er Fl or id a la w? (3 ) Is th e cl as s act io n waiv er pr ov is io n in Pl ai nt iff’s co nt ract with Sp rin t subs ta nt iv el y

un co ns ci on ab le un de r Fl or id a la w? [an d] (4 ) Is th e cl as s act io n waiv er pr ov is io n in Pl ai nt iff’s co nt ract with Sp rin t vo idun de r Fl or id a la w for an y ot he r rea so n? Id . at 1 14 3– 44
.

12As d is cu ss edab ov e, aft er we ce rti fie d t he se qu es ti on s t o t he Flo rid a

Supr em e Co urt, the Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d i ts Co nc ep ci on de ci si on . Inres po ns e to Sp rin t’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw cert ifi cat io n, we ac kn owl ed ge d tha t i f Co nc ep ci on ha d b een de ci de d b efo re o urearl ie r Pen de rg as t d eci si on , we wou ld
no t h av e certi fie d que st io ns to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, b utwe lef t i t up t o t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt wh ethe r to an swe r th e certi fie d que st io ns or r eturn t he cas e to us . Pen de rg as t v . Spr in t Nex te l Co rp ., No. 09 -1 06 12 (11 th Cir . Ju ne 17 , 20 11 ) (o rd er d en y in g m ot io n t o wi th dr aw cert ifi cat io n) . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ch os e to return the cas e, an d we n ow co ns id er the is su es in li gh t o f Co nc ep ci on . W e b eg in ou r an al y si s b y di sc us si ng th e Supr em e Co urt’s Co nc ep ci on de ci si on . Nextwe di sc us s C ru z v . Cin gu la r W ire le ss , LLC, 64 8 F .3d12 05 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ), ou r rec en t d eci si on ap pl y in g C on cep ci on . W e th enap pl y th os e de ci si on s t o t he fact s o f th is cas e. 5

II . SUPREME COURT’S CONCE PCION DECI SI ON InCo nc ep ci on , th e Supr em e Co urt co nf ro nt edfact s s im il ar t o tho se be fo re
us no w: a p ut at iv e cl as s ac ti on bro ug htby w ire le ss tel ep ho ne cu st om ers , a m ot io n to co m pe l arbi tra ti on pu rs ua ntto th e p art ie s’ servi ce ag reem en t, an d aco nt en ti on

We reviewa district cour t’s order compellingarbitration de novo. Dale v. Comca st 5 Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1219 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 13th atth e ag reem en t’s cl as s ac ti onwaiv er was un co ns ci on ab le . See Co nc ep ci on ,

13 1 S . Ct. at17 44 –4 5. Th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the FAA pre em pt ed Cal ifo rn ia ’s st at e la w th atren de redm os t co ll ect iv e act io n wai ve rs inco ns um er
co nt ract s unc on sc io nabl e. Id . at 1 75 3. Pre em pt io n was requi redbe cau se th e Cal ifo rn ialaw re qu ire d t he av ai labi li ty of cl as swi de arb it rat io n, wh ic h

“ in te rfer e[d ] with fu nd am en ta l at tri bu te s o f arb it rat io n a ndth us crea te [d ] a sc he m e in co ns is te ntwith t he FAA.” Id. at17 48
. InCo nc ep ci on , pl ai nt iff

s Vi nc en t an d Li za Co nc ep ci on en te redin to a wire le ss tel ep ho ne co nt ractwith AT&T. The co nt ract“pr ov id edfor arb it rat io n o f al l d is pu te s b etweenth e p art ie s, b utrequi redth atcla im s b e b ro ug htin th e p art ie s’ ‘ind iv idua l capa ci ty, an d n otas apl ai nt iff or c la ss m em

be r inan y

pu rp orte d c la ss
orrep res en ta ti ve pro ceed in g.’” Id . at 1 74 4. Th e Co nc ep ci on s s ue d AT&T i n fed eral di st ric t co urt, al le gi ng th ey were ch arg edsal es tax on ph on es adve rti se d t o be free . The Co nc ep ci on s’ com pl ai ntwas c on so li da te d wi th a pu ta ti ve cla ss act io n. Id
. AT&T m ov edto co m

pe l arbi tra ti on , andth e Co nc ep ci on s ar gu edth atth e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i n t he ir a rb it rat io n a gr eem en t was un co ns ci on ab le un de r Cal ifo rn ialaw. Id . at 1 74 4– 45 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d AT&T’s m ot io n t o
co m pe l arbi tra ti on , andth e Nin th Cir cu itaffi rm ed , con cl ud in g t ha t (1 ) th e cl as s 14act io n wai ve r in th e arb itrat io n a gr eem en t was un co ns ci on ab le un de r Cal ifo rn ia

la w as a nn ou nc edin Dis co ve r Ban k v . Sup eri or Co urt, 1 13 P.3d11 00 (20 05 ), an d (2 ) th e FAA di d n otpre em ptCal ifo rn ia ’s Dis co ve r Ban k ru le
. Con cep ci on , 13 1 6 S. Ct . at 1 74 5. Th e Supr em e Co urt g ran te d c ert io rari on th e FAA pr eem pt io n is su e an d re ve rs ed . Id. at17 45 , 17 53
. Enfo rci ng th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t, the Supr em e Co urt o bs erv edth atth e FAA was e na ct ed“ in res po ns e to wid es pr eadjud ic ia l h os ti li ty to arbi tra ti on ag reem en ts ” an d § 2 o f th e FAA (i ts pri m ary subs ta nt iv e p ro vi si on ) refl ect s a

“ li be ral fed eral po li cy

fav or in g a rb it rat io n.” Id. at17 45 (qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d)
. Thu s, “ co urts m us t p la ce ar

bi tra ti on ag reem en ts on anequa l fo ot in g 7 with o th er co nt ract s an d e nf or ce the m acco rd in g t o the ir t erm s.” Id . (ci ta ti on

The Discove r B ank rule decla red c lass action wa ivers in ar bitration agree ments 6 unconsciona

ble, and thus unenf

orce able, if ( 1) the wa iver is “f ound in a consumer

contra ct of adhesion,” (2) it is fore seea ble that disputes betwee n the par ties will invol ve small amounts of damag es, and ( 3) the c onsumer alleg es that the de fenda nt corporation “has ca

rried out a

scheme to deliberately

chea t larg e number s of consumer s out of individually small sums of money .” Concepc ion, 131 S. C t. at 1746 (quotingDiscover Ba nk, 113 P.3d at 1110). FAA§ 2 provides: 7 A written provision in any maritime transa ction or a c ontrac t evidencinga transac tion involvi ngcommerc e to settle by arbitration a controve rsy there afte r arisingout of such contr act or transac tion, or the ref

usal to perf

orm the whole or any part ther eof, or

an agree ment in writing to submit to arbitration an e x isting controve rsy

arisingout of such a c ontrac t, transac tion, or ref usal, shall be valid, irrevoc able, a

nd enfor cea

ble, save upon such grounds as e x ist at law or in equity for the r evoca

tion of any

contra ct. 9 U.S.C. § 2. 15om it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt s ta te d, “ The qu es ti on inth is cas e is whet he r § 2

pr eem pt s C al ifo rn ia ’s [Dis co ve r Ban k] rul e cl as si fy in g m os t co ll ect iv e-arbi tra ti on waiv ers in co ns um er co nt ract s as un co ns ci on ab le .” Id . at 1 74 6. The fin al ph ras e o f th e FAA’s § 2 , kn own as t he “ sa vi ng claus e,” “pe rm it s ag reem en ts to arb itrat e to be in va li da te d b y ge ne ral ly app li cab le co ntractde fen se s,
su ch as f rau d, dur es s, o r un co ns ci on ab il it y , bu t n otby defen se s t ha t ap pl y on ly to arb it rat io n o r th atde riv e th ei r m ean in g fr om th e fac t tha t anag reem en t t o arb it rat e is at i ss ue .” Id . (em

ph as is ad de d) (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. The Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atwhen a st at e la w pro hi bi ts ou tri gh t the arb it rat io n o f a p art ic ul ar ty pe of c la im , th e st at e ru le is pre em pt edby the FAA. Id . at 1 74 7. Th e m or e d iff ic ul t i ss ue is “ whe n ado ctrin e n orm al ly tho ug htto be ge ne ral ly app li cab le , su ch as . . . un co ns ci on ab il it y , is all eg edto ha ve be enap pl ie d in a fas hi on th atdi sf

av or s arbi tra ti on .” Id . In s uc h c as es , th e FAA can st il l pr eem ptst at e la w, for “ a co urt m ay no t re ly on t he un ique ne ss of an a gr eem en t t o arb it rat e as a ba si s fo r a s ta te -la w ho ld in g t ha t en fo rcem en t wo ul d b e
un co ns ci on ab le , forth is wou lden ab le th e co urt t o e ffec t wh at[] th e st at e le gi sl atur e can no t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
.

16InCo nc ep ci on , th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the Dis co ve r Ban k ru le

was pre em

pt edby the FAA bec au se it“ in te rfer es with fu nd am en ta l at tri bu te s o f arb it rat io n” : The ov erar ch in g pu rp os e of th e FAA, ev id en t in th e te xt of §§ 2, 3, an d 4, is to en su re th e en fo rcem en t of arb it rat io n ag r e e men ts acco rd in g to th ei r te rm s so as to faci li ta te st ream li ne d pr o c e e d i ng s. Requi rin g th e av ai labi li ty of cl as swi de arb it rat io n in te rfer es with fu nd am en ta l at tri bu te s of arb itrat io n an d th us crea te s a sc he m e in co ns is te nt with th e FAA. Id . at 1 74 8 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . The Supr em e Co urt re as on edth at : (1 ) th e FAA’s pr in ci pa l p ur

po se is to en su re the en fo rcem en t o f pr iv at e arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts
acco rd in g t o t he ir t erm s; (2) th e Supr em e Co urt p rev io us ly hadhe ldth e p art ie s
m ay ag ree t o l im it , in te r al ia , th e is su es to be arb it rat ed , th e ru le s u nd er wh ic h arb it rat io n wo ul d p ro ceed , andwith wh om th ey ch oo se to arb it rat e; an d (3 ) th e
reas onforall owi ng pa rti es su ch di sc ret io n i s t o p erm iteffi ci en t, s tre am li ne d pr oc edur es . Id. at17 48 –4 9. Th e Dis co ve r Ban k ru le in te rfer es with a rb it rat io n be cau se , altho ug h i t “ do es no t re qu ire cla ss wid e arb it rat io n, i t al lo ws an y party to
a co ns um er co ntractto de m an d i t ex po st .” Id . at 1 75 0. Tha t the swi tc h t o c la ss -wid e arb it rat io n i s a f un da m en ta l ch an ge , th e Co nc ep ci on Co urt s ta te d, i s “ ob vi ou s” be cau se cla ss -wid e arb it rat io n “ in cl ud es ab se ntpa rti es , nec es si ta ti ng ad di ti on al an d d iff eren t p ro cedur es an d i nv ol vi ng

17hi gh er s ta ke s,” c on fid en ti al it y is di ffi cu ltto m ai nt ai n, an d i t i s h ardto fin d a n arb it rat orwith e xp ert is e in cla ss act io n p ro cedur al is su es . Id. Fro m th is , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d, “ [t]he co nc lu si on fol lo ws tha t cl as s arb it rat io n, t o t he ex te ntitis m anuf actur edby D is co ve r Ban k ra th er tha n
co ns en su al , is in co ns is te ntwith the FAA.” Id. at17 50 –5 1. Th e Supr em e Co urt
ex pl ai ne d t ha t: (1) “ th e swi tc h fr om bi la te ral to cla ss arb it rat io n s acri fic es th e pr in ci pa l ad vant ag e o f arb it rat io n— it s i nf orm al it y —an d m ak es th e p ro ces s s lo wer,
m or e co st ly, an d m or e li ke ly to g en erat e p ro cedur al m or as s t han fi na l ju dg m en t” ; (2 ) “ cl as s arbi tra ti on requi res pro cedur al form al it y ”; (3) “ cl as s arbi tra ti ongre at ly in crea se s ri sk s t o d efen da nt s” ; an d (4 ) “ [a]rbi tra ti on is po or ly sui te d t o t he hi gh er st ak es of c la ss li ti ga ti on .” Id . at 1 75 1– 52 . The Supr em e Co urt ad de d, “ W e fi ndit ha rdto be li ev e th atde fen da nt s wo ul d b etth e co m pa ny withno effe ct iv e m ean s o f
rev ie w, andev enha rd er t o b el ie ve th atCo ng res s wo ul d h av e in te nd edto all ow st at e co urts to for ce s uc h ade ci si on .” Id . at 1 75 2. Th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d,

“ It i s n otreas on ab ly den iabl e th atrequi rin g c on su m er d is pu te s t o b e arb it rat edon a cl as swi de ba si s wi ll have a subs ta nt ia l d et erre nteffe cton in cen ti ve s t o arb it rat e.” Id . at 1 75 2 n .8. The Supr em e Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t p art ie s co ul d m utua ll y ag ree t o cl as swi de arb it rat io n, d es pi te it s d is adva nt ag es . “ Bu t wh atth e p art ie s . . . wou ld
18ha ve ag reedto is no t ar bi tra ti on as e nv is io ne d b y th e FAA, lac ks th e b en efi ts , and th eref or e m ay no t b e requi redby stat e law.” Id. at17 53
. The Supr em e Co urt 8
co nc lu de d, “ Bec au se itst an ds as an o bs ta cl e to th e acc om pl is hm en t an d e xe cu ti on of th e fu ll pu rp os es an d o bjec ti ve s o f Co ng res s, Ca li fo rn ia ’s Dis co ve r Ban k ru le is pr eem pt edby the FAA.” Id. (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
.

II I. TH IS COURT’S CRUZDECIS IO N InCru z v . Cin gu la r W ire le ss , LLC, thi s C ou rt e nf or cedanarb it rat io n ag reem en t an d app li edCo nc ep ci on to fact s re m ark ab ly sim il ar t o t ho se in th e pr es en t ca se . The Cr

uz pl ai nt iff

s wer e m ob il e te le ph on e cu st om ers of AT&T Mo bi li ty, LLC (“ ATTM”) (fo rm erl y Cin gu la r W ire le ss ). The p la in ti ffs ’ se rv ic e
co nt ractwith ATTM co nt ai ne d (1 ) a m an da to ry arb it rat io n c laus e, (2 ) a cl as s act io n wai ve r, an d (3 ) a n on -s ev erab il it y pro vi si on (al so cal le d a“bl ow- up cl au se ”) s ta ti ng th atif t he cla ss act io n wai ve r were “ fo un d t o b e u ne nf or ceab le , th enth e en ti rety

of [ th e] arbi tra ti on pro vi si onsh al l b e nul l an d v oi d.” Cru z, 64 8 F.3 d a t 1 20 7. 9 The Supreme Court responded to the dissent’ s arg ument that “cla ss proce eding s are 8 nece ssary to prosecute small-dollar cla ims that mi ght otherwise slip through the leg al sy stem.” I d. at 1753. The ma

jority stated that “States c annot re quire a proce dure that is inconsist ent with the FAA, eve n if it is desirable for unrelated re asons.” I d. The c ontrac t also contained a chang es-to-a gree ment clause . I d. at 1207 n.4. The Court 9 cited and a

pplied the re vised version of the arbitration provision, pursuant to the chang es-toagree ment clause . I d. 19The Cru z p la in ti ffs bro ug hta cl as s ac ti on all eg in g ATTM v io la te d t he

FDUTPA by charg in g fo r a “ Ro ad si de Ass is ta nc e Pl an ” th ey ne ve r or de red . Id. at 12 07 –0 8. ATTM fi le d am ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d. Th e p la in ti ffs ap pe al ed . Id. at12 08
. Thi s C ou rt a ffi rm ed , con cl ud in g t ha t we d idno t n eedto de ci de whet he r Fl or id a la w wou ldin va li da te th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er b ecau se ev enif i t d id , th e la w
wou ldbe pre em

pt edby the FAA, perCo nc ep ci on . Id. at12 15
. To the ex te ntth atFlo rid a p ub li c p ol ic y vo id edth e ATTM cl as s ac ti on waiv er b ecau se th e Cru z p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m “ m us t p ro ceedas acla ss act io n o r no t at al l,” C on cep ci on “ sp eci fic al ly rejectedth is publ ic po li cy arg um en t.” Id . at 1 21 2 (“ The di ss en t cl ai m s t ha t cl as s p ro ceed in gs are n eces sa ry to pro se cu te sm al l-d ol la r cl ai m s t ha t m ig htot he rwis e sl ip th ro ug h t he leg al syste m . ButSta te s ca nn ot requi re a p ro cedur e th atis in co ns is te ntwith t he FAA, eve n i f itis de si rab le for
un rel at edreas on s.” ( qu ot in g C on cep ci on , 13 1 S . Ct. at17 53 )). Thi s C ou rt r eject edth e Cru z p la in ti ffs ’ arg um en t tha t Co nc ep ci on ex te nd s
on ly to s ta te laws th atim po se no n- co ns en su al cla ss -wid e arb it rat io n, an d thu s d id
no t ap pl y in Cru z b ecau se th e n on -s ev erab il it y pro vi si onin th e ATTM co nt ract
en su redth atATTM wou ldno t b e fo rcedin to cla ss arb it rat io n, m erel y cla ss li ti ga ti on . Id. at12 13 –1 4. We exp la in edth atth is arg um en t l ack edm eri t b ecau se 20(1 ) th e n on -co ns en su al eli m in at io n o f arb itrat io n a lt og ethe r was ev enm or e

in co ns is te ntwith t he FAA th anth e n on -co ns en su al requi rem en t o f cl as s- wid e arb it rat io n; an d (2 ) th e p art ie s i n C on cep ci on were n otbe in g fo rcedin to cla ss arb it rat io n e it he r. Cru z, 64 8 F .3dat 1 21 3– 14
. 1 0 The Cru z p la in ti ffs als o a rg ue d “ th atCo nc ep ci onon ly preem pt s i nf le xi bl e, cat eg or ic al st at e la ws tha t m ech an ic al ly inv al id at e cl as s wai ve r pr ov is io ns in a ge ne ric cat eg ory

of c as es ” b utth atFlo rid a la w, un li ke th e Dis co ve r Ban k ru le ,

“ in va li da te s cl as s ac ti on ba ns on ly whe n t he in di vi du al iz edfact s o f th e cas e de m on st rat e th atth e b anis fun ct io na ll y ex cu lp at ory .” Id . at 1 21 3. In supp ort, the pl ai nt iff s p ro ffer ed(1) affi da vi ts fro m Flo rid a co ns um er l aw atto rn ey s s ta ti ng th ey
wou ldno t re pr es en t p la in ti ffs in di vi du al ly in p ur su in g the ir c la im s ag ai ns t ATTM be cau se itwou ldno t b e co st -eff ect iv e to do so , and(2) st at is ti cs sh owi ng on ly a ti ny perc en ta ge of ATTM cu st om ers ha ve arb it rat eda di sp ut e wit h i t. Id . at 1 21 4. Thi s C ou rt r eject edth e p la in ti ffs ’ arg um en ts be cau se th e p la in ti ffs ’ “ ev id en ce g oe s
on ly to s ub st an ti at in g t he ve ry publ ic po li cy

arg um en ts th atwere ex pr es sl y We expl ained, “ It would be anomalous indee d if the F AA—which pr omotes 1 0 arbitration—were offe nded by imposing upon ar

bitration nonconsensua l proce dures that inter fer e with arbitration’s f

undamental attributes, but not offended by the nonconse nsual elimination of arbitration altoge ther.” 648 F.3d a t 1213 (citation omitted). We pointed out that the Concepc ions “fac ed no [more] risk of beingforc ed into class ar bitration” than the Cruz plaintiffs, beca use (1) “nonconse nsual class a rbitration was a lrea dy

prohibited” by

Supreme Court prec edent, a

nd (2) “ the ar

bitration agree ment in Concepcion c ontained the ve ry same blow-up clause that is present he re.” I d. at 1213–14. 21reject edby the Supr em e Co urt i n C on cep ci on—n am el y , th atth e cl as s ac ti on

waiv er wi ll be ex cu lp at ory , bec au se m os t o f th es e small- va lu e cl ai m s wi ll go
un de te ct edan d u np ro se cu te d.” Id. Thu s, thi s C ou rt c on cl ud edth at , gi ve n C on cep ci on , “ ou r res ol ut io n o f th is
cas e d oe s n otde pe ndon a co ns tru ct io n o f Fl or id a law.” Id. at12 15 . Rath er, “ [t]o th e ex te ntth atFlo rid a la w wou ldrequi re the av ai labi li ty of cl as swi de arb itrat io n pr oc edur es in th is cas e” b ecau se “ th e cas e in vo lv es nu m ero us sm al l-d ol lar cl ai m s by con su m ers ag ai ns t a c or po rat io n, . . . su ch a st at e ru le is in co ns is te ntwith a nd th us pre em

pt edby FAA § 2 .” Id
.

IV. ANALYSI S Res ol ut io n o f Pen de rg as t’s ap pe al requi res on ly a str ai gh tfo rward ap pl ic at io n o f Co nc ep ci on an d C ru z. W e n eedno t d eci de whet he r th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er h ere i s u nc on sc io nabl e u nd er Fl or id a la w or i f itfru st rat es th e rem ed ia l pu rp os es of t he FDUTPA, bec au se to th e ex te ntFlo rid a la w wou ldin va li da te th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er, i t wo ul d s ti ll be pre em pt edby the FAA. 1 1

We also conclude that, for the r easons se t forth in our pre vious decision, Penderg ast’s 1 1 challeng e to the enf

orce ability

of the c hang es-to-a gree ment clause fails. See Pende rg ast, 592 F.3d at 1142. The cha

ng es-to-a gree ment clause was supporte d by considera

tion and consent, a

nd it is notsubstantively

unconsciona

ble. Thus, the January

2008 version of the parties’ agree ment—which included a n arbitra tion clause, a

class ac tion waiver, a

nd a non-se vera

bility provision—controls. 22Pen de rg as t’s ra ti on al es forin va li di ty of th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er u nd er

Fl or id a u nc on sc io nabi li ty doc tri ne an d t he FDUTPA are es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e. Pen de rg as t co nt en ds th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er p recl ud es hi m an d o th er Sp rin t
cu st om ers fro m

ob ta in in g m ean in gf

ul rel ie f be cau se th ei r cl ai m s ca nn ot , as a pr act ic al m at te r, be purs ue d i nd iv idua ll y . Inot he r wor ds , Pen de rg as t ar gu es , as d idth e Co nc ep ci on s, “ th atth e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t [i s] un co ns ci on ab le an d u nl awfu ll y ex cu lp at ory

un de r [s ta te ] la w bec au se itdi sa ll ow[ s] cla ss wid e p ro cedur es .” Co nc ep ci on , 13 1 S . Ct. at17 45
. If Fl or id a law were t o i nv al id at e th e cl as s ac ti on on th atba si s, the n fo r th e sa m e
reas on s t he Supr em e Co urt en un ci at edinCo nc ep ci on , th atst at e la w wou ldim po se pr oc edur es fun da m en ta ll y in co m pa ti bl e wit h t he arb itrat io n t he pa rti es ag reed up on , wou ldth us st an d a s an ob st acl e to th e acc om pl is hm en t o f th e FAA’s ob jecti ve s, an d wo ul d b e p reem pt ed . See i d. at17 46 –5 3; see als o C ru z, 64 8 F .3d at12 12 –1 3 (“ [T]o th e ex te ntth atFlo rid a la w wou ldbe sym pa th et ic to th e Pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en ts he re, an d wo ul d i nv al id at e th e cl as s wai ve r si m pl y be cau se th e cl ai m s ar e o f sm al l v al ue , th e p ot en ti al cla im s ar e num ero us , andm any
co ns um ers m ig htno t kno w abo utor p ur su e th ei r po te nt ia l cl ai m s ab se ntcla ss pr oc edur es , su ch a st at e p ol ic y st an ds as a n o bs ta cl e to th e FAA’s ob jecti ve of
en fo rci ng arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts acco rd in g t o the ir t erm s, an d i s p reem pt ed .”).
23Pen de rg as t al so arg ue s t ha t Co nc ep ci on m erel y he ldth ata st at e’s ge ne ral ly ap pl ic ab le co nt ractde fen se s ca nn otbe us edto for ce d efen da nt s i nt o an arb it rat io n pr oc edur e in co ns is te ntwith t he FAA, andhe re Sp rin t wi ll ne ve r be for cedin to cl as s arbi tra ti on be cau se of t he no n- se ve rab il it y pro vi si on . W e, ho wev er, rejec te d th is same argu m en t i n C ru z. If an yth in g, the no n- se ve rab il it y claus e m ak es th e
cas e fo r FAA pr eem

pt io n e ve n s tro ng er h ere t ha n i n C on cep ci on . As we h el d i n Cru z inreg ardto a ne arl y id en ti cal no n- se ve rab il it y pro vi si on , if a s ta te rul e in va li da ti ng cla ss act io n wai ve rs in arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts (th ereb y requi rin g cl as s- wid e arb it rat io n i ns te adof b il at eral arb it rat io n) serve s as anob st acl e to th e FAA’s ob jecti ve of e nf

or ci ng arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts acco rd in g t o t he ir t erm s, the n a st at e ru le in va li da ti ng a cl as s ac ti on waiv er an d t he reb y for ci ng th e p art ie s o utof arb it rat io n e nt ire ly frus tra te s t he FAA’ s p ur po se ev enm or e. See C ru z, 64 8 F .3dat 12 13 (“ It wo ul d b e an om al ou s i nd eedif t he FAA—wh ic h p ro m ot es arb it rat io n—were o ffen de d b y im po si ng up on arb it rat io n n on co ns en su al pr oc edur es th atin te rfer e wit h a rb it rat io n’s fu nd am en ta l at tri bu te s, b utno t of fen de d b y th e n on co ns en su al eli m in at io n o f arb it rat io n a lt og ethe r.”). The fact th atth e st at e ru le for ces th e p art ie s o utof a rb it rat io n b ecau se of t he ir
co nt ractua ll y -ex pr es se d fa ll ba ckpo si ti onof p refe rri ng cla ss li ti ga ti onto cla ss arb it rat io n d oe s n otm ak e th e st at e ru le an y m or e co ns is te ntwith t he FAA.
24Pen de rg as t al so arg ue s t ha t i n C on cep ci on , th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edth at

th e p la in ti ffs co ul d v in di cat e th ei r ri gh ts witho utth e cl as s ac ti onm ech an is m , bu t he re the un di sp ut edreco rdev id en ce s ho ws tha t Pe nd erg as t wi ll no t b e ab le to vi nd ic at e h is rig ht s wi th ou t a c la ss act io n. Ag ai n, we d is po se d o f a s im il ar arg um en t i n C ru z. W e ackno wled ge d t ha t the pl ai nt iff s i n C ru z “pr es en te d a factua l re co rdno t p res en t i n C on cep ci on ,” in cl ud in g a ffi da vi ts fro m Flo rid a
co ns um er l aw at to rn ey s s ta ti ng itwou ldno t b e co st -eff ect iv e to pu rs ue th e pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s ag ai ns t ATTM ex cep t o n acla ss -wid e b as is an d s ta ti st ic al
ev id en ce ab ou t the nu m

be r of ATTM cus to m ers who arb itrat edcla im s ag ai ns t i t. 1 2 64 8 F .3dat 1 21 4. Ho wev er, we rejec te d t he pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t b ecau se th ei r
ev id en ce o nl y

ten de d “ to subs ta nt ia t[e ] th e v ery publ ic po li cy arg um en ts th atwere
ex pr es sl y reject edby the Supr em e Co urt i n C on cep ci on ”: [On ] th e fact s o f t h i s cas e, we be li ev e th at fai th fu l adhe ren ce to Co nc ep ci on requi res th e r eject io n of th e Pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en t. The Pl ai nt iff s’ ev id en ce go es on ly to subs ta nt ia ti ng th e ve ry pu b l i c po li cy arg um en ts th at were ex pr es sl y reject ed by th e Supr em e Co urt in Co nc ep ci on—n am el y , th at th e cl as s act io n waiv er wil l be ex cu lp at ory , be cau se m os t of th es e sm al l-v al ue cl ai ms w i l l go un de te ct ed an d unpr os ecu te d. The Co urt ob se rv ed th at Cal ifo rn ia ’s Dis co ve r Ban k ru le to o ha d “ it s or ig in s in Cal i f o rn ia ’s un co ns ci on ab il it y do ctrin e an d Cal ifo rn ia ’s po li cy ag ai nst ex cu lp at io n.” Co nc ep ci on , 13 1 S.Ct
. at 17 46
. In de ed , th e Co nc ep ci on co ns um er-p la in ti ffs ’ br ie f to th e Supr em e Co urt rep eat ed ly em

ph as iz ed th at Cal ifo rn ia ’s ru le was a “ fact -s pe ci fi c” Penderg ast submits si milar evidenc e in this case. 1 2 25in qu iry th at on ly sc reen ed ou t cl as s act io n ba ns “ in ci rcu m st an ces whe re

th ey wou ld
. . . be ex cu lp at ory .” Id . at 1 21 4 (c it at io ns om it te d)
. The reas on in g o f Cru z ap pl ie s eq ua ll y he re. The Supr em e Co urt i n Co nc ep ci on ex pr es sl y

reject edth e n ot io n t ha t the st at e la w sh ou ldno t b e pr eem pt edbe cau se th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er wo ul d e ffec ti ve ly shi el d t he de fen da nt fro m li ab il it y . See Co nc ep ci on , 13 1 S . Ct. at17 53 (“ The di ss en t cl ai m s t ha t cl as s pr oc eed in gs are n eces sa ry to pro se cu te sm al l-d ol la r cl ai m s t ha t m ig htothe rwis e sl ip th ro ug h t he leg al syste m . ButSta te s ca nn otrequi re a p ro cedur e th atis in co ns is te ntwith t he FAA, eve n i f itis de si rab le forot he r rea so ns .” (ci ta ti on
om it te d) ). Pen de rg as t’s at te m pt s t o d is ti ng ui sh Co nc ep ci on are u na va il in g. 1 3 Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, we co nc lu de th atwe ne edno t re achth e qu es ti on s o f whe th er Fl or id a la w wou ldin va li da te th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er i n t he pa rti es ’ co nt ractbe cau se , to th e ex te ntitdo es , itwou ldbe pre em pt edby the FAA. Und er Co nc ep ci on , bo th th e cl as s ac ti on waiv er an d the arb it rat io n c laus e m us t b e
en fo rcedacco rd in g t o t he ir t erm s. V. CONCLUSIO N

We rejec t as meritless Pender g ast’s re maining a rguments that Sprint waived a f eder al 1 3 pree mption argument and that the c ontrac t’s designation of the now- defunc t National Arbitra tion For um as the ar

bitral forum wa s an integral c omponent of the a rbitration clause
. 26W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng Pen de rg as t’s co m pl ai ntan d
co m pe ll in g a rb it rat io n. AFFIRMED.

27