Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 20

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

allow state courts to force such a decision.8 

The Concepcions contend that because parties may and
sometimes  do  agree  to  aggregation,  class  procedures  are
not  necessarily  incompatible  with  arbitration.    But  the 
same could be said about procedures that the Concepcions 
admit States may not superimpose on arbitration: Parties 
could  agree  to  arbitrate  pursuant  to  the  Federal  Rules  of 
Civil  Procedure,  or  pursuant  to  a  discovery  process  rival-
ing that in litigation.  Arbitration is a matter of contract, 
and  the  FAA  requires  courts  to  honor  parties’  expecta-
tions.  Rent-A-Center,  West,  561  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at 
3).  But what the parties in the aforementioned examples
would  have  agreed  to  is  not  arbitration  as  envisioned  by 
the  FAA,  lacks  its  benefits,  and  therefore  may  not  be
required by state law.

The dissent claims that class proceedings are necessary
to prosecute small-dollar claims that might otherwise slip 
through the legal system.  See post, at 9.  But States can-
not require a procedure that is inconsistent with the FAA,
even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons.  Moreover, the 
claim  here was  most  unlikely  to  go  unresolved.    As  noted  
earlier,  the  arbitration  agreement  provides  that  AT&T
will  pay  claimants  a  minimum  of  $7,500  and  twice  their 
attorney’s fees if they obtain an arbitration award greater
than  AT&T’s  last  settlement  offer.    The  District  Court 

—————— 

8 The  dissent  cites  three  large  arbitration  awards  (none  of  which 
stems from classwide arbitration) as evidence that parties are willing to
submit large claims before an arbitrator.  Post, at 7–8.  Those examples
might be in point if it could be established that the size of the arbitral
dispute  was  predictable  when  the  arbitration  agreement  was  entered. 
Otherwise,  all  the  cases  prove  is  that  arbitrators  can  give  huge 
awards—which  we  have  never  doubted.    The  point  is  that  in  class-
action  arbitration  huge  awards  (with  limited  judicial  review)  will  be 
entirely  predictable,  thus  rendering arbitration  unattractive.    It  is  not 
reasonably  deniable  that  requiring  consumer  disputes  to  be  arbitrated
on  a  classwide  basis  will  have  a  substantial  deterrent  effect  on  incen-
tives to arbitrate.