In Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, No. 11-35823 (9th Cir. July 15, 2013), plaintiffs sued under federal statutes and Montana state law in connection with targeted advertising they received while using defendant’s internet service. The service agreement contained a choice of law clause specifying New York law and requiring arbitration. The district court declined to enforce either provision, concluding the provisions violated Montana public policy. Even after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the district court found Montana’s public policy exception precluded enforcement of the arbitration and choice of law clauses. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Interpreting Concepcion, the court concluded that any general state law contract defense, whether based in unconscionability or otherwise, that has a disproportionate effect on arbitration was displaced by the FAA. The Montana rule, which required arbitration agreements in contracts of adhesion to be within the parties’ reasonable expectations and not to violate fundamental rights, such as the right to a trial, was held to be preempted by the FAA. Because the Montana reasonable expectations/fundamental rights rule was preempted, there was no Montana state law basis for rejecting the choice of law selection of the parties. Further, upon remand to the trial court, the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to apply New York law.