Roberts v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against AT&T by customers who alleged that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as "unlimited" when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain usage levels. The panel held that there was no state action in this case, rejecting plaintiffs' claim that there was state action whenever a party asserts a direct constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). The panel held that Denver Area did not broadly rule that the government was the relevant state actor whenever there was a direct constitutional challenge to a "permissive" statute, and did not support finding state action here. The panel also held that the Federal Arbitration Act merely gives AT&T the private choice to arbitrate, and did not encourage arbitration such that AT&T's conduct was attributable to the state.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against AT&T Mobility LLC by customers who alleged that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as “unlimited” when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain usage levels. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action, alleging statutory and common law consumer protection and false advertising claims under California and Alabama law. AT&T moved to compel arbitration in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) “that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law deeming AT&T’s arbitration provision to be unconscionable.” Plaintiffs opposed arbitration on First Amendment grounds. The district court compelled arbitration, holding as a threshold matter that there was no state action. The panel agreed with the district court and held that there was no state action in this case. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that there is a state action whenever a party asserts a direct constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). The panel held that Denver Area did not broadly rule that the government is the relevant state actor whenever there is a
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.