Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 35

8 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

“[a]rbitration  is  poorly  suited  to  . . .  higher  stakes”  lacks 
empirical  support.  Ante,  at  16.    Indeed,  the  majority
provides  no  convincing  reason  to  believe  that  parties  are
unwilling  to  submit  high-stake  disputes  to  arbitration.
And there are numerous counterexamples.  Loftus, Rivals 
Resolve Dispute Over Drug, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 16,
2011, p. B2 (discussing $500 million settlement in dispute
submitted  to  arbitration);  Ziobro,  Kraft  Seeks  Arbitration
In  Fight  With  Starbucks  Over  Distribution,  Wall  Street 
Journal, Nov. 30, 2010, p. B10 (describing initiation of an
arbitration  in  which  the  payout  “could  be  higher”  than
$1.5  billion);  Markoff,  Software  Arbitration  Ruling  Gives 
I.B.M.  $833  Million  From  Fujitsu,  N. Y.  Times,  Nov.  30, 
1988,  p.  A1  (describing  both  companies  as  “pleased  with 
the ruling” resolving a licensing dispute). 

Further, even though contract defenses, e.g., duress and 

unconscionability,  slow  down  the  dispute  resolution  proc­
ess,  federal  arbitration  law  normally  leaves  such  matters
to  the  States.    Rent-A-Center,  West,  Inc.  v.  Jackson,  561 
U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 4) (arbitration agreements
“may  be  invalidated  by  ‘generally  applicable  contract 
defenses’ ”  (quoting  Doctor’s  Associates,  Inc.  v.  Casarotto, 
517  U. S.  681,  687  (1996))).    A  provision  in  a  contract  of
adhesion  (for  example,  requiring  a  consumer  to  decide 
very  quickly  whether  to  pursue  a  claim)  might  increase 
the  speed  and  efficiency  of  arbitrating  a  dispute,  but  the 
State can forbid it.  See, e.g., Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 
Ohio  St.  3d  63,  67,  2009–Ohio–2054,  ¶19,  908  N. E.  2d
408,  412  (“Unconscionability  is  a ground  for  revocation  of 
an arbitration agreement”); In re Poly-America, L. P., 262 
S. W.  3d  337,  348  (Tex.  2008)  (“Unconscionable  contracts, 
however—whether  relating  to  arbitration  or  not—are 
unenforceable under Texas law”).  The Discover Bank rule 
amounts to a variation on this theme.  California is free to 
define unconscionability as it sees fit, and its common law 
is of no federal concern so long as the State does not adopt