Wisconsin Court of Appeals
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.”
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
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