Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2010 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09–893.  Argued November 9, 2010—Decided April 27, 2011 

The cellular telephone contract between respondents (Concepcions) and 
petitioner (AT&T) provided for arbitration of all disputes, but did not 
permit  classwide  arbitration.    After  the  Concepcions  were  charged 
sales tax on the retail value of phones provided free under their ser-
vice contract, they sued AT&T in a California Federal District Court.
Their  suit  was  consolidated  with  a  class  action  alleging,  inter  alia, 
that  AT&T  had  engaged  in  false  advertising  and  fraud  by  charging
sales tax on “free” phones.  The District Court denied AT&T’s motion 
to  compel  arbitration  under  the  Concepcions’  contract.  Relying  on
the  California  Supreme  Court’s  Discover Bank  decision,  it  found  the 
arbitration  provision  unconscionable  because  it  disallowed  classwide
proceedings.  The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was uncon-
scionable under California law and held that the 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, did not preempt its 
ruling. 

Held: Because it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and exe-
cution  of  the  full  purposes  and  objectives  of  Congress,”  Hines  v. 
Davidowitz,  312  U. S.  52,  67,  California’s  Discover  Bank rule  is  pre-
empted by the FAA.  Pp. 4–18.

(a) Section  2  reflects  a  “liberal  federal  policy  favoring  arbitration,” 
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 
1, 24, and the “fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of
contract,”  Rent-A-Center,  West,  Inc.  v.  Jackson,  561  U. S.  ____,  ____. 
Thus,  courts  must  place  arbitration  agreements  on  an  equal  footing 
with  other  contracts,  Buckeye  Check  Cashing,  Inc.  v.  Cardegna,  546 
U. S.  440,  443,  and  enforce  them  according  to  their  terms,  Volt  In-