Schnall v. AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
259 P.3d 129
Wash.2011Background
- AT&T Wireless billed customers a Universal Connectivity Charge (UCC) and Schnall filed a nationwide class action alleging CPA and contract-based claims for deceptive billing; UCC is connected to FCC-mandated USF contributions and is passed to customers.
- Contracts contained choice-of-law provisions largely based on customers' area codes, purportedly selecting state law for contract claims.
- Trial court found individual issues predominate; Court of Appeals reversed and certified a nationwide class for some claims.
- Washington CPA and contract claims involve extraterritorial application and potential variations among 50 states’ laws.
- Court grants partial certification denial: nationwide contract-class not certified due to state-law differences; CPA class issues remanded for reconsideration under Indoor Billboard standards.
- Procedural posture: Supreme Court of Washington affirms in part, reverses in part, remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether choice-of-law provisions govern contract claims for a nationwide class | Schnall argues class-wide analysis invalid due to 50-state laws | AT&T contends enforceable state-law provisions prevent common issues | Choice-of-law provisions valid; contract claims not manageable nationwide |
| Do state-law differences destroy predominance for a nationwide contract class | Differences manageable via subclasses or masters | Differences preclude predominance across states | Trial court properly denied nationwide contract class; statewide subclasses may be feasible |
| Can a nationwide CPA class be certified given causation and reliance issues | CPA proves misrepresentation and causation broadly | Causation must be shown for each member | CPA claims not certifiable nationwide without reconsideration under Indoor Billboard framework |
| Should the CPA apply extraterritorially to a nationwide class | Washington CPA applies beyond borders to protect public interest | Extraterritorial CPA should be limited | Court remands CPA extraterritorial considerations for reconsideration (majority leaves unresolved) |
| Is nationwide class superior to statewide actions | Nationwide action prevents duplicative litigation and is efficient | Statewide actions are sufficient and manageable | Supremacy of nationwide class not established; remand for reconsideration of manageability and subclasses |
Key Cases Cited
- Erwin v. Cotter Health Ctrs., Inc., 161 Wash.2d 676 (2007) (enforceability of choice-of-law under Restatement §187; fundamental policy inquiry)
- Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp., 87 Wash.2d 577 (1976) (significant relationship approach to choice of law)
- In Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., 162 Wash.2d 59 (2007) (proximate causation standard; test for CPA causation; not per se payment sufficiency)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778 (1986) (CPA elements; causation framework and public interest)
- Pickett v. Holland America Line-Westours, Inc., 145 Wash.2d 178 (2001) (similarities in class issues; limited precedential value for CAFA-like context)
- Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., 251 F.R.D. 544 (2008) (discusses place-of-contract and substantial relationship in class actions)