For very important issues with important implications, arbitration procedures can be conducted by an arbitration committee or a tribunal that operates in the same way as a jury. These agreements also systematically require subscribers to renounce their right to join in collective actions. This practice was adopted by the industry following the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT-T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in which the court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) superseded any state law that “undermines the fundamental attributes of arbitration, including its individualized procedures. As some companies have, arbitration clauses must be bold and have a clear warning. Although Iberia has decided that they should not be more visible than the rest of the contract, the arbitration clauses concern important legal rights and, given the general tendency to embellish the details in long-term consumer contracts, attention should be drawn to the provision. The main purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is to ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced in accordance with their terms. This objective is easily apparent from the FAA text. 9 U.S.C.S.

2 makes arbitration agreements valid, irrevocable and enforceable as written (subject to the savings clause); 9 U.S.C.S. 3 requires the courts to maintain arbitration disputes until these claims are adjudicated in accordance with the terms of the agreement; and 9 U.S.C.S. 4 requires the courts to compel arbitration proceedings under the terms of the agreement at the request of one of the parties to the agreement (provided that the implementation of the arbitration agreement or the failure to comply with the same). In light of these provisions, the parties may agree to limit the issues before arbitration, to arbitrate under certain rules, and to limit with whom a party will resolve its disputes. Telecommunications companies are of course aware that virtually no one by time and time mediation on the law or hiring a lawyer to file an arbitration action over an overload on a mobile phone bill. A federal judge noted: “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual shares, but zero individual combinations, because only a madman or a fanatic complains about $30.” Given the time and cost of arbitration, only a very small number of consumers even choose to claim claims for $1,000 or less. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that, for five reasons, the compromise clause was materially unacceptable and therefore unenforceable. First, the waiver of the class action in the arbitration clause served to “protect AT-T from legal liability for any wrong if the cost of the lawsuit outweighs the potential amount of recovery.” [160] In this case, some claims were filed at $4.99. [161] Second, AT-T overstated the fact that its compromise clause was consumer-friendly.

[162] A free arbitration procedure is unlikely to be worthwhile for a client to claim small claims. [163] Third, these “consumer-friendly” provisions have no expected effect. [164] Since 2003, fewer than 200 consumer arbitration proceedings with AT-T have been conducted at the federal level, and only 256 complaints against AT-T have been filed at the federal level. [165] Given that AT-T has more than 70 million customers, it is clear that “the percentage of customers who use consumer-friendly ATT rules is an infinitely large amount.” [166] Fourth, collective action is necessary to justify the rights of the public.