Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

5 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

II 

Under this reading, the question here would be whether 
California’s Discover Bank rule relates to the making of an 
agreement.  I think it does not. 

In  Discover  Bank,  36  Cal.  4th  148,  113  P. 3d  1100,  the 
California  Supreme  Court  held  that  “class  action  waivers
are, under certain circumstances, unconscionable as unlaw-
fully  exculpatory.”  Id.,  at  65,  113  P. 3d,  at  1112;  see 
also id., at 161, 113 P. 3d, at 1108 (“[C]lass action waivers 
[may  be]  substantively  unconscionable  inasmuch  as  they 
may  operate  effectively  as  exculpatory  contract  clauses
that  are  contrary  to  public  policy”).    The  court  concluded 
that where a class-action waiver is found in an arbitration 
agreement in certain consumer contracts of adhesion, such
waivers “should not be enforced.”  Id., at 163, 113 P. 3d, at 
1110.  In  practice,  the  court  explained,  such  agreements 
“operate  to  insulate  a  party  from  liability  that  otherwise
would be imposed under California law.”  Id., at 161, 113 
P. 3d,  at  1108,  1109.  The  court  did  not  conclude  that  a 
customer would sign such an agreement only if under the
influence of fraud, duress, or delusion. 

The court’s analysis and conclusion that the arbitration
agreement was exculpatory reveals that the Discover Bank 
rule  does  not  concern  the  making  of  the  arbitration 
agreement.  Exculpatory contracts are a paradigmatic ex-
ample  of  contracts  that  will  not  be  enforced  because  of 
public  policy.  15  G.  Giesel,  Corbin  on  Contracts  §§85.1,
85.17,  85.18  (rev.  ed.  2003).    Indeed,  the  court  explained
that it would not enforce the agreements because they are
“ ‘against  the  policy  of  the  law.’ ”  36  Cal.  4th,  at  161,  113 
P. 3d,  at  1108  (quoting  Cal.  Civ.  Code  Ann.  §1668);  see 
also  36  Cal.  4th,  at  166,  113  P. 3d,  at  1112  (“Agreements 
to  arbitrate  may  not  be  used  to  harbor  terms,  conditions
and  practices  that  undermine  public  policy”  (internal 
quotation  marks  omitted)).    Refusal  to  enforce  a  contract 
for  public-policy  reasons  does  not  concern  whether  the