Unconscionability as a Defence Against Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses in the Aftermath of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

In the case AT&T Mobility v. Conception, U.S. Supreme Court held that California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of such law. However, state courts may still rule an arbitration agreement unenforceable on the grounds of unconscionability so long as arbitration agreements are not disfavored with respect to other contracts. As a result, some state courts have deviated from the Conception principles and interpreted such decision in a restrictive fashion, ruling against the enforcement of arbitration clauses on the grounds of unconscionability when certain standards are met (California for instance). However, Courts appear divided on this topic and a uniform line of thinking towards the solution of this issue is yet to be devised. The article aims at analysing the situation since, as noted above, a uniform line of thinking on thematter is yet to be devised.