In the new case, AT&T argues that the McGill decision does not apply 'because the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek is directed at a subgroup of AT&T customers, not the general public as a whole.' Citibank 'that an arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and therefore unenforceable,' the District Court judge wrote at the time.įurther Reading AT&T suffers another blow in court over throttling of “unlimited” data That's because the California Supreme Court had ruled in McGill v. In March 2018, a judge in the same court ruled that AT&T could not use its arbitration clause to avoid a class-action lawsuit over the company's throttling of unlimited mobile data plans. The case is pending in US District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, who are represented by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) attorneys, will likely argue that the arbitration clause is invalid. In a motion to compel arbitration filed last week, AT&T said that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate disputes with AT&T when they entered into wireless service contracts. AT&T is trying to force customers into arbitration in order to avoid a class-action complaint over the telecom's former practice of selling users' real-time location data.

Att wireless sales