McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Ninth Circuit)

An AT&T customer sued AT&T on behalf of a putative class, claiming that the company violated consumer protection statutes by failing to adequately disclose certain charges. The customer service agreement required the parties to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis, but the district court denied AT&T’s motion to compel arbitration after concluding that the provision was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law. On appeal, we argued to the Ninth Circuit that the district court’s decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion, which held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California’s rule on the enforceability of arbitration clauses. The court agreed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.