Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

a  special  rule  that  disfavors  arbitration.    Cf.  Doctor’s  As-
sociates, supra, at 687.  See also ante, at 4, n. (THOMAS, J., 
concurring) (suggesting that, under certain circumstances, 
California might remain free to apply its unconscionability 
doctrine).

Because  California  applies  the  same  legal  principles  to
address  the  unconscionability  of  class  arbitration  waivers
as  it  does  to  address  the  unconscionability  of  any  other 
contractual  provision,  the  merits  of  class  proceedings
If  California  had 
should  not  factor  into  our  decision. 
applied its law of duress to void an arbitration agreement, 
would it matter if the procedures in the coerced agreement 
were efficient? 

Regardless, the majority highlights the disadvantages of
class  arbitrations,  as  it  sees  them.  See  ante,  at  15–16 
(referring  to  the  “greatly  increase[d]  risks  to  defendants”;
the  “chance  of  a  devastating  loss”  pressuring  defendants 
“into settling questionable claims”).  But class proceedings 
have  countervailing  advantages.    In  general  agreements
that  forbid  the  consolidation  of  claims  can  lead  small­
dollar  claimants  to  abandon  their  claims  rather  than  to 
litigate.  I  suspect  that  it  is  true  even  here,  for  as  the 
Court  of  Appeals  recognized,  AT&T  can  avoid  the  $7,500 
payout  (the  payout  that  supposedly  makes  the  Concep­
cions’ arbitration worthwhile) simply by paying the claim’s
face value, such that “the maximum gain to a customer for
the  hassle  of  arbitrating  a  $30.22  dispute  is  still  just
$30.22.”  Laster  v.  AT&T  Mobility  LLC,  584  F. 3d  849, 
855, 856 (CA9 2009).

What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent
the  Concepcions  in  litigation  for  the  possibility  of  fees
stemming  from  a  $30.22  claim?    See,  e.g.,  Carnegie  v. 
Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F. 3d 656, 661 (CA7 2004) (“The 
realistic  alternative  to  a  class  action  is  not  17  million 
individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a luna­
tic  or  a  fanatic  sues  for  $30”).    In  California’s  perfectly