Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 29

2 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

The specific rule of state law in question consists of the
California Supreme Court’s application of these principles 
to hold that “some” (but not “all”) “class action waivers” in
consumer  contracts  are  exculpatory  and  unconscionable 
under California “law.”  Discover Bank v. Superior Ct., 36 
Cal. 4th 148, 160, 162, 113 P. 3d 1100, 1108, 1110 (2005).
In  particular,  in  Discover  Bank  the  California  Supreme
Court stated that, when a class-action waiver 

“is found in a consumer contract of adhesion in a set­
ting in which disputes between the contracting parties
predictably  involve  small  amounts  of  damages,  and 
when  it  is  alleged  that  the  party  with  the  superior 
bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliber­
ately  cheat  large  numbers  of  consumers  out  of  indi­
vidually  small  sums  of  money,  then  . . .  the  waiver 
becomes  in  practice  the  exemption  of  the  party  ‘from
responsibility  for  [its]  own  fraud,  or  willful  injury  to 
the  person  or  property  of  another.’ ”    Id.,  at  162–163, 
113 P. 3d, at 1110. 

In  such  a  circumstance,  the  “waivers  are  unconscionable 
under California law and should not be enforced.”  Id., at 
163, 113 P. 3d, at 1110. 

The Discover Bank rule does not create a “blanket policy
in California against class action waivers in the consumer 
context.”  Provencher  v.  Dell,  Inc.,  409  F. Supp. 2d  1196, 
1201  (CD  Cal.  2006).    Instead,  it  represents  the  “appli­
cation  of  a  more  general  [unconscionability]  principle.” 
Gentry v. Superior Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 443, 457, 165 P. 3d 556, 
564 (2007).  Courts applying California law have enforced 
class-action  waivers  where  they  satisfy  general  uncon­
scionability standards.  See, e.g., Walnut Producers of Cal. 
v.  Diamond  Foods,  Inc.,  187  Cal.  App.  4th  634,  647–650,
114  Cal.  Rptr.  3d  449,  459–462  (2010);  Arguelles-Romero 
v.  Superior  Ct.,  184  Cal.  App.  4th  825,  843–845,  109  Cal.
Rptr. 3d 289, 305–307 (2010); Smith v. Americredit Finan-