AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and the Antidiscrimination Theory of FAA Preemption
Hiro N. Aragaki
Loyola Law School (Los Angeles)
April 26, 2012
4 Y.B. Arb. & Med. 39 (2013)
This paper offers an alternative interpretation and critique of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). The received wisdom is that Concepcion takes to unwarranted extremes two policies underlying Federal arbitration law: the policy to respect arbitration's status as a "creature of contract," and the policy to favor arbitration. In the main, commentators have argued that these policies have been over-exaggerated and have no sound foundation in the Federal Arbitration Act.
I offer a different account of Concepcion. In my view, Concepcion signals not a magnification of the traditional justifications for FAA preemption but rather a break from them. The case brings to the fore what I have elsewhere described as the antidiscrimination model of FAA preemption. Understanding how that model played out during the litigation of Concepcion and how it undergirds the majority opinion, I argue, provides a more comprehensive basis for critiquing Concepcion and its implications for future FAA preemption cases.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 42
Keywords: arbitration, class action, class Arbitration, AT&T mobility, concepcion, federal arbitration act, FAA, FAA Preemption, federal preemption, supreme court, antidiscriminationAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 28, 2012 ; Last revised: May 14, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds