EEUU | Federal | Tribunal Supremo | 2011 | AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion Et Ux.

Banderas > América > USA

Estados Unidos de América | United States of America

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion Et Ux.[Supreme Court of the United States on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; No. 09–893; Argued November 9, 2010; Decided April 27, 2011]

Tribunal Supremo EEUUThe FAA was enacted in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements.

The final phrase of §2, however, permits arbitration agreements to be declared unenforceable “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” This saving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by “generally applicable con-tract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability,” but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.

The switch from bilateral to class arbitration sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration—its in-formality—and makes the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment. “In bilateral arbitration, parties forgo the procedural rigor and appellate review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of private dispute resolution: lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the ability to choose expert adjudicators to resolve specialized disputes.”

Because it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941), California’s Discover Bank rule is preempted by the FAA. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.