This is a nationwide class action against AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violation of state consumer protection statutes arising from AT&T Wireless’s acquisition of Cingular Wireless in 2004. AT&T’s customer agreements contain a class action ban. We argued that the class action ban in AT&T’s arbitration clause was unconscionable under Washington law and that Washington law should govern the enforceability of the arbitration clause.
On May 26, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington struck down the arbitration clause as "unconscionable." The Court held that, without a class action, the vast majority of AT&T's customers would never obtain justice. The court also emphatically rejected AT&T's argument that the laws of other states chosen by AT&T in its contract should apply to non-Washington state customers even if those states' laws are less protective of consumers and would permit AT&T to bar their residents from participating in the class action.
Public Justice Staff Attorneys Paul Bland and Leslie Bailey, and Public Justice Budd-Kazan Fellow Matt Wessler are co-counsel in the case to oppose AT&T’s attempts to prevent the plaintiffs from being able to pursue their claims in court in Washington, and also participate on other issues where reasonable and advisable. Co-counsel in the case are Public Justice Foundation Past President Paul Strittmatter of Strittmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio (SKWC) in Washington; Bruce Simon in San Francisco, California; Harvey Rosenfield of The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, California; Public Justice Foundation Past President Jeff Foote of Oregon; and more than a dozen other attorneys.
Read our Access to Justice Update on the Coneff Case.
Briefs and Documents for the Coneff Case
Supplemental Brief on Concepcion and Schnall (Dec. 1, 2011)
Supplemental Reply (Dec. 15, 2011)
Amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, filed on behalf of our clients in Coneff, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject arguments by the nation's largest cell phone corporation that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") permits it to bar its customers from bringing a class action against it, even when a class action is the only way to stop widespread violations of state law.
Opening Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellees. This brief argues that the district court's decision refusing to enforce AT&T's choice-of-law clause and class action ban should be affirmed. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 09-35563, December 10, 2009).
Decision striking down the arbitration clause in AT&T's consumer contract. U.S. District Court for the District of Washington (May 26, 2009)
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration This brief argues that the class action ban in AT&T Wireless's consumer contract is exculpatory and unconscionable under Washington law, and that Washington law should govern the enforceability of the class action ban with regard to all members of the nationwide class because AT&T Wireless was based in Washington; the alleged wrongful conduct emanated from Washington; and Washington has a strong interest in ensuring that companies based in the state do not cheat consumers in other states. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, Case No. 206-cv-00944-RSM, March 14, 2008)
Declaration of Stuart Rossman in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition
Declaration of Jerome Hartzell in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition
Declaration of Daniel Blinn in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition
Complaint.