Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-133_19m1.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

442 U. S. 682, 700–701 (1979).  The parties here agreed to 
arbitrate  pursuant  to  that  “usual  rule,”  and  it  would  be 
remarkable for a court to erase that expectation. 

Nor does congressional approval of Rule 23 establish an 
entitlement  to  class  proceedings  for  the  vindication  of 
statutory  rights.    To  begin  with,  it  is  likely  that  such  an
entitlement,  invalidating  private  arbitration  agreements 
denying class adjudication, would be an “abridg[ment]” or
modif[ication]”  of  a  “substantive  right”  forbidden  to  the 
Rules, see 28 U. S. C. §2072(b).  But there is no evidence of 
such  an  entitlement  in  any  event.  The  Rule  imposes 
stringent  requirements  for  certification  that  in  practice
exclude most claims.  And we have specifically rejected the 
assertion  that  one  of  those  requirements  (the  class-notice 
requirement) must be dispensed with because the “prohib-
itively  high  cost”  of  compliance  would  “frustrate  [plain-
tiff ’s]  attempt  to  vindicate  the  policies  underlying  the 
antitrust”  laws.    Eisen  v.  Carlisle  &  Jacquelin,  417  U. S. 
156,  166–168,  175–176  (1974).  One  might  respond,  per-
haps,  that  federal  law  secures  a  nonwaivable  opportunity
to  vindicate  federal  policies  by  satisfying  the  procedural
strictures of Rule 23 or invoking some other informal class 
mechanism  in  arbitration.    But  we  have  already  rejected 
that  proposition  in  AT&T  Mobility,  563  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip 
op., at 9). 

IV 
Our  finding  of  no  “contrary  congressional  command”
does not end the case.  Respondents invoke a judge-made 
exception to the FAA which, they say, serves to harmonize
competing federal policies by allowing courts to invalidate 
agreements  that  prevent  the  “effective  vindication”  of  a
federal  statutory  right.    Enforcing  the  waiver  of  class 
arbitration  bars  effective  vindication,  respondents  con-
tend,  because  they  have  no  economic  incentive  to  pursue
their antitrust claims individually in arbitration.