A California consumer brought a class action against a satellite television service for unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, false advertising and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The consumer had signed an agreement waiving rights to bring class action claims, and the agreement further stated that if “the law of your state would find this agreement to dispense with class arbitration procedures unenforceable, then this entire Section 9 is unenforceable.” The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the class action and to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration, the Court of Appeal affirmed, stating: “The class action waiver is unenforceable under California law, so the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable.” The California Supreme Court denied review. Citing both Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (2006) 546 U.S. 440 [126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038, 19 Fla.L.WeeklyFed S. 94], and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 [131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742, 22 Fla.L.WeeklyFed.S. 957], the United States Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal, stating that California’s interpretation of the phrase “law of your state” does not place arbitration contracts on equal footing with all other contracts, and for that reason, it does not give due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration. (DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia (U.S. Sup. Ct.; December 14, 2015) ___U.S.___ [136 S.Ct. 463, 193 L.Ed.2d 365, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 567].)
