Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 4

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 09–893 
_________________ 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, PETITIONER v. VINCENT 

CONCEPCION ET UX. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[April 27, 2011] 

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Section  2  of  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (FAA)  makes
agreements  to  arbitrate  “valid,  irrevocable,  and  enforce-
able,  save upon  such  grounds  as  exist  at  law  or  in  equity 
for  the  revocation  of  any  contract.”    9  U. S. C.  §2.    We 
consider whether the FAA prohibits States from condition-
ing the enforceability of certain arbitration agreements on
the availability of classwide arbitration procedures. 

I 

In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered 
into  an  agreement  for  the  sale  and  servicing  of  cellular 
telephones  with  AT&T  Mobility  LCC  (AT&T).1    The  con-
tract  provided  for  arbitration  of  all  disputes  between  the 
parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties’ 
“individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member 
in any purported class or representative proceeding.”  App. 

—————— 

1 The  Concepcions’  original  contract  was  with  Cingular  Wireless. 
AT&T  acquired  Cingular  in  2005  and  renamed  the  company  AT&T
Mobility  in  2007.    Laster  v.  AT&T  Mobility  LLC,  584  F. 3d  849,  852, 
n. 1 (CA9 2009).