Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ITALIAN COLORS 
RESTAURANT 
Syllabus
 

470  U. S.  213,  221,  even  for  claims  alleging  a  violation  of  a  federal
statute, unless the FAA’s mandate has been “ ‘overridden by a contra-
ry  congressional  command,’ ”  CompuCredit  Corp.  v.  Greenwood,  565 
U. S. ___, ___.  Pp. 3–4.

(b) No  contrary  congressional  command  requires  rejection  of  the 
class-arbitration  waiver  here.    The  antitrust  laws  do  not  guarantee 
an  affordable  procedural  path  to  the  vindication  of  every  claim,  see 
Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522, 525–526, or “evince an in-
tention  to  preclude  a  waiver”  of  class-action  procedure,  Mitsubishi 
Motors  Corp.  v.  Soler-Chrysler-Plymouth,  Inc.,  473  U. S.  614,  628. 
Nor does congressional approval of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
establish  an  entitlement  to  class  proceedings  for  the  vindication  of
statutory rights.  The Rule imposes stringent requirements for certi-
fication that exclude most claims, and this Court has rejected the as-
sertion that the class-notice requirement must be dispensed with be-
cause  the  “prohibitively  high  cost”  of  compliance  would  “frustrate
[plaintiff’s] attempt to vindicate the policies underlying the antitrust”
laws, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 167–168, 175–176. 
Pp. 4–5.

(c) The  “effective  vindication”  exception  that  originated  as  dictum 
in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 
614, also does not invalidate the instant arbitration agreement.  The 
exception  comes  from  a  desire  to  prevent  “prospective  waiver  of  a 
party’s right to pursue statutory remedies,” id., at 637, n. 19; but the 
fact  that  it  is  not  worth  the  expense  involved  in proving  a  statutory 
remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that 
remedy.  Cf.  Gilmer  v.  Interstate/Johnson  Lane  Corp.,  500  U. S.  20, 
32;  Vimar  Seguros  y  Reaseguros,  S. A. v. M/V  Sky  Reefer,  515  U. S. 
528, 530, 534.  AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. ___, all 
but resolves this case.  There, in finding that a law that conditioned
enforcement of arbitration on the availability of class procedure inter-
fered  with  fundamental  arbitration  attributes,  id.,  at  ___,  the  Court 
specifically  rejected  the  argument  that  class  arbitration  was  neces-
sary to prosecute claims “that might otherwise slip through the legal
system,” id., at ___.  Pp. 5–9. 

667 F. 3d 204, reversed. 

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a con-
curring  opinion.    KAGAN, J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  GINS-
BURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of the case.