Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

6 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

2009,  No.  08–1198,  p. 25  (hereinafter  AAA  Amicus  Brief). 
And  unlike  the  majority’s  examples,  the  Discover  Bank 
rule  imposes  equivalent  limitations  on  litigation;  hence 
it  cannot  fairly  be  characterized  as  a  targeted  attack  on 
arbitration. 

Where  does  the  majority  get  its  contrary  idea—that
individual,  rather  than  class,  arbitration  is  a  “fundamen­
tal  attribut[e]”  of  arbitration?    Ante,  at  9.  The  majority
does not explain.  And it is unlikely to be able to trace its
present view to the history of the arbitration statute itself.
When Congress enacted the Act, arbitration procedures
had  not  yet  been  fully  developed.    Insofar  as  Congress
considered detailed forms of arbitration at all, it may well 
have  thought  that  arbitration  would  be  used  primarily
where  merchants  sought  to  resolve  disputes  of  fact,  not
law,  under  the  customs  of  their  industries,  where  the 
parties  possessed  roughly  equivalent  bargaining  power.
See Mitsubishi Motors, supra, at 646 (Stevens, J., dissent­
ing);  Joint  Hearings  on  S.  1005  and  H. R.  646  before  the
Subcommittees  of  the  Committees  on  the  Judiciary,  68th
Cong., 1st Sess., 15 (1924); Hearing on S. 4213 and S. 4214 
before  a  Subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  67th  Cong.,  4th  Sess.,  9–10  (1923);  Dept.  of 
Commerce,  Secretary  Hoover  Favors  Arbitration—Press 
Release (Dec. 28, 1925), Herbert Hoover Papers—Articles,
Addresses,  and  Public  Statements  File—No.  536,  p. 2
(Herbert  Hoover  Presidential  Library);  Cohen  &  Dayton,
The New Federal Arbitration Law, 12 Va. L. Rev. 265, 281 
(1926); AAA, Year Book on Commercial Arbitration in the
United  States  (1927).    This  last  mentioned  feature  of  the 
history—roughly  equivalent  bargaining  power—suggests, 
if  anything,  that  California’s  statute  is  consistent  with, 
and  indeed  may  help  to  further,  the  objectives  that  Con­
gress had in mind.

Regardless,  if  neither  the  history  nor  present  practice
suggests  that  class  arbitration  is  fundamentally  incom­