Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Consumer Protection — class action waivers

Consumer Protection — class action waivers

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Consumer Protection — class action waivers

Collective arbitration waivers in consumer contracts are not unconscionable.

“In October 2011, the supreme court granted review, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). In Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. at 1746, 1753, the Supreme Court held that a state law that ‘classif[ied] most collective-arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable[,]’ and thus unenforceable, was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In light of Concepcion, the classwide arbitration waiver in Estes’s arbitration agreement is enforceable and is not substantively unconscionable. We also reject Estes’s arguments that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable in several other ways. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment and order confirming the arbitration award and order compelling arbitration.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP760 Cottonwood Financial, Ltd., v. Estes

Dist. III, Pierce County, Wing, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Crandall, Eric L., New Richmond; For Respondent: Dillon, Duffy, Janesville; Olson, Kim M., Janesville; Dawson, William B., Dallas, TX; Tonkinson, Stuart, Dallas, TX


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*