• On July 19, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California largely dismissed a putative class action suit against AT&T Mobility in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws or court rulings that invalidate no-class-action clauses in consumer contracts. Here, the putative class action was brought by iPad consumers complaining that they are victims of a "bait-and-switch fraud scheme" when they paid $130 more for 3G-enabled iPads based on AT&T and Apple's advertising of an unlimited data plan that included options to switch between tiered and unlimited plans – AT&T discontinued those options soon after purchase. The N.D. Cal. dismissed the suit, because the wireless contracts require arbitration. "The argument that [AT&T's] arbitration provision is unenforceable solely because it includes a class action waiver is no longer viable," the California court noted. The court rejected arguments based on the law of states other than California, finding that, in the wake of Concepcion, "it ultimately makes little difference which states' laws are applied."

One plaintiff's claim survived, because he never subscribed to AT&T's 3G service, and thus did not enter into the contract with AT&T that contains the arbitration provision. The court rejected AT&T's argument that that plaintiff still had to arbitrate his iPad-related claim on the ground that he holds a contract with AT&T for his iPhone, concluding that "Certainly a reasonable consumer would not contemplate that an arbitration agreement regarding the iPhone would bind him to arbitrate a dispute with respect to a future, unreleased device. At bottom, it cannot reasonably be that both parties intended for the iPhone 3GS arbitration clause to extend to all future Apple products that utilize [AT&T's] data network." In re Apple & AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-02553 (N.D. Cal.).