Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 344 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A class action waiver in a consumer contract of adhesion is unconscionable and unenforceable when it has a high degree of substantive unconscionability, even if the procedural unconscionability is minimal due to the existence of market alternatives.
Facts:
- T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a provider of cellular telephone services.
- Plaintiffs, including Bruce Gatton and Christina Nguyen, subscribed to T-Mobile's services.
- To obtain service, all plaintiffs had to execute a standard, non-negotiable service agreement drafted by T-Mobile.
- The agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause that also explicitly waived the subscriber's right to participate in any class action lawsuit.
- One of the challenged T-Mobile policies was the imposition of a $200 early termination fee if a subscriber cancelled their service before the contract period ended.
- Another challenged policy was T-Mobile's practice of selling handsets with a software lock (SIM lock) that prevented them from being used on a competitor's network.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce Gatton et al. and Christina Nguyen et al. filed separate class action lawsuits against T-Mobile USA, Inc. in California superior court, the court of first instance.
- The trial court consolidated the actions.
- T-Mobile filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the clause in its service agreements.
- The trial court denied T-Mobile's motion, ruling that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
- T-Mobile, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal of California, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mandatory arbitration provision containing a class action waiver in a cellular service agreement become unconscionable when it is part of a contract of adhesion, even if other providers without such waivers are available in the market?
Opinions:
Majority - Gemello, J.
Yes, the mandatory arbitration provision is unconscionable and unenforceable. Unconscionability is determined using a sliding scale that balances both procedural and substantive elements. The T-Mobile service agreement is a contract of adhesion, which establishes a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability due to the unequal bargaining power and lack of negotiation. The existence of other cellular providers in the market does not eliminate this oppression, but merely reduces its degree. This minimal procedural unconscionability is coupled with a high degree of substantive unconscionability. Following the precedent of Discover Bank v. Superior Court, the class action waiver functions as an exculpatory clause because it effectively immunizes the company from liability for schemes that cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money, as individual arbitration is not economically feasible for claims like a $200 fee. The high degree of substantive unfairness outweighs the minimal procedural unfairness, rendering the arbitration clause unenforceable.
Concurring and dissenting - Jones, P.J.
No, the arbitration provision should be enforced. While the class action waiver is substantively unconscionable under the compulsion of Discover Bank, the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable. Both elements are required for a finding of unconscionability. There was no 'surprise,' as T-Mobile made multiple clear disclosures of the arbitration provision. More importantly, there was no 'oppression' because plaintiffs had a meaningful choice; they could have obtained cellular service from other providers, like Sprint or Nextel, whose agreements did not contain class action waivers. The availability of meaningful market alternatives defeats the oppression element of procedural unconscionability. Since the procedural element is absent, the arbitration agreement is not unconscionable and should be enforced.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the unconscionability doctrine in the context of consumer contracts of adhesion. It establishes the important precedent that the mere existence of market alternatives does not automatically defeat a claim of procedural unconscionability. Instead, the court views market choice as a factor that only reduces the degree of procedural oppression, which can still be outweighed on a sliding scale by a provision that is highly substantively unfair, such as a class action waiver. This decision strengthens consumer protections by making it more difficult for companies to enforce class action waivers in adhesive contracts simply by pointing to the existence of competitors.
Unlock the full brief for Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.