Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
225 P.3d 929 (2010)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Martin Schnall, a New Jersey resident, Nathan Riensche, a Washington resident, and others (Schnall) (plaintiffs) were customers of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T) (defendant). Schnall filed a class action in Washington state court against AT&T. Schnall alleged that AT&T misled customers nationwide by including a monthly charge that was not included in advertised monthly rates and not clearly described in billing statements. The charge was a fee assessed against AT&T by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which AT&T lawfully passed down to customers. Schnall asserted contract claims and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Schnall sought certification of a nationwide class of all improperly billed AT&T customers. The trial court denied certification of the class, concluding that individual questions predominated over common questions. Additionally, the trial court held that the choice-of-law clause in each customer’s service contract required that the law of the state where the customer resided govern any dispute. Schnall appealed. The court of appeals reversed and certified the class. The Supreme Court of Washington granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Madsen, C.J.)
Dissent (Sanders, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
