I am writing about "AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion(2010)" I need help answering a question.

In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered into anagreement for the sale and servicing of cellular telephones withAT&T Mobility LCC (AT&T). 1 The contract providedfor arbitration of all disputes between the parties, but requiredthat claims be brought in the parties’ “individual capacity, andnot as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class orrepresentative proceeding.” App. to Pet. for Cert61a. 2 The agreement authorized AT&T to makeunilateral amendments, which it did to the arbitration provision onseveral occasions. The version at issue in this case reflectsrevisions made in December 2006, which the parties agree arecontrolling.

The revised agreement provides thatcustomers may initiate dispute proceedings by completing a one-pageNo-tice of Dispute form available on AT&T’s Web site. AT&Tmay then offer to settle the claim; if it does not, or if thedispute is not resolved within 30 days, the customer may invokearbitration by filing a separate Demand for Arbitration, alsoavailable on AT&T’s Web site. In the event the parties proceedto arbitration, the agreement specifies that AT&T must pay allcosts for nonfrivolous claims; that arbitration must take place inthe county in which the customer is billed; that, for claims of$10,000 or less, the customer may choose whether the arbitrationproceeds in person, by telephone, or based only on submissions;that either party may bring a claim in small claims court in lieuof arbitration; and that the arbitrator may award any form ofindividual relief, including injunctions and presumably punitivedamages. The agreement, moreover, denies AT&T any ability toseek reimbursement of its attorney’s fees, and, in the event that acustomer receives an arbitration award greater than AT&T’s lastwritten settlement offer, requires AT&T to pay a $7,500 minimumrecovery and twice the amount of the claimant’s attorney’sfees. 3

The Concepcions purchased AT&Tservice, which was advertised as including the provision of freephones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged$30.22 in sales tax based on the phones’ retail value. In March2006, the Concepcions filed a complaint against AT&T in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia. The complaint was later consolidated with a putativeclass action alleging, among other things, that AT&T hadengaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax onphones it advertised as free.

In March 2008, AT&T moved to compelarbitration under the terms of its contract with the Concepcions.The Concepcions opposed the motion, contending that thear-bitration agreement was unconscionable and unlawfullyexculpatory under California law because it disallowed classwideprocedures. The District Court denied AT&T’s motion. Itdescribed AT&T’s arbitration agreement favorably, noting, forexample, that the informal dispute-resolution process was “quick,easy to use” and likely to “promp[t] full or … even excess paymentto the customer without the need to arbitrate orlitigate”; that the $7,500 premium functioned as “a substantialinducement for the consumer to pursue the claim in arbitration” ifa dispute was not resolved informally; and that consumers who weremembers of a class would likely be worseoff. Laster v. T-Mobile USA,Inc. , 2008 WL 5216255, *11–*12 (SD Cal., Aug. 11, 2008).Nevertheless, relying on the California Supreme Court’s decisionin Discover Bank v. SuperiorCourt , 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100 (2005), thecourt found that the arbitration provision was unconscionablebecause AT&T had not shown that bilateral arbitrationadequately substituted for the deterrent effects of classactions. Laster , 2008 WL 5216255, *14.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, alsofinding the provision unconscionable under California law asannounced in DiscoverBank . Laster v. AT&TMobility LLC , 584 F. 3d 849, 855 (2009). It alsoheld that the Discover Bank rule was notpreempted by the FAA because that rule was simply “a refinement ofthe unconscionability analysis applicable to contracts generally inCalifornia.” 584 F. 3d, at 857. In response to AT&T’sargument that the Con-cepcions’ interpretation of California lawdiscriminated against arbitration, the Ninth Circuit rejected thecontention that “ ‘class proceedings will reduce theefficiency and expeditiousness of arbitration’ ” and notedthat “ ‘ Discover Bank placedarbitration agreements with class action waivers onthe exact same footing as contracts that barclass action litigation outside the context ofarbitration.’ ” Id ., at 858(quoting Shroyer v. New CingularWireless Services, Inc ., 498 F. 3d 976, 990 (CA92007)).

We granted certiorari, 560 U. S.___ (2010).

1. How did the At&t v. Concepcion case proceedthrough the legal system?

2. What are the facts in the case?