2002-05-22 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

unenforceable) violated the Supremacy Clause." Minnesota - the first state to adopt the Uniform Arbitration Act in 1957 - also recognizes a firm public policy requiring enforcement of arbitration agreements.'o Thus, like the FAA, Minnesota law favors arbitration as a speedy, informal, and inexpensive manner of resolving disputes. Contrary to the LFAs' assertions, the Arbitration Provisions are not void as unconscionable contracts of adhesion under Minnesota law. First, they are not contracts of adhesion. Under Minnesota law, a contract of adhesion is "a contract generally not bargained for, but which is imposed on the public for necessarv services on a 'take it or leave it' basis."11 The CSAs do not meet that definition. As a threshold proposition, the CSAs are not contracts imposed on the public for necessarv services, but rather contracts knowingly entered into for the purposes of entertainment services. Courts all across the country have consistently held that cable teleilision service is not a necessity, but rather a luxury with multiple alternatives for the consumer.12 That cable television is not a necessary service is evidenced by the variety of ever increasing available options such as satellite services, video rentals, broadcasters and others. In fact, only approximately 50% of television households in AT&T Broadband's Minnesota service area choose to receive their video programming from AT&T. Last year alone, satellite service penetration grew 30% in our service areas and is purChased by approximately 15% of the households. Moreover, even if the CSAs could properly be characterized as adhesion contracts, not all adhesion contracts are unconscionable under Minnesota law.'3 Neither are agreements to arbitrate per se unconscionable. Mere inequality in bargaining power is an insufficient basis to invalidate an arbitration agreernent.'4 Rather, a contract is unconscionable only in the rare circumstances that "no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other."'5 Obviously, that standard has not been met here. In fact, very few, if any, customers. have voiced concerns about the Arbitration Provisions and, as described below, they inure to the great benefit of consumers by significantly reducing their " In overturning the California restriction on arbitration, the Supreme Court in Southland Corp., noted that Congress, in enacting the Federal Arbitration Act consciously rejected the "oid common-law hostility toward arbitration." Southland Corp., 465 U.S. 1, 14 (1984). '0 See Minn. Stat. S 572.08; Dunshee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 228 NW.2d 567, 570 (Minn.1975) (detailing history of arbitration law in Minnesota). 11 Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920,924 (Minn. 1982) (emphasis in original). 12 See Thomson v. Mediaone of St. Paul, Inc., slip. Op. At 4 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 1, 1999) ("cable service is a luxury; not a necessity"); see also Hassen v. MediaOne of Greater Florida, slip. Op. At 6-7 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 24, 1998) ("cable television, as a matter of law, is not a necessity, and even if it were, the same services were available to plaintiffs through a wide variety of alternatives, such as wireless cable television, videocassettes, satellite dishes, and television antenna"), atl'd by 751 So.2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago, 658 N.E.2d 1325,1332-33 (III. App. 1995) (holding that cable television is not a necessity such that its threatened loss will support an exception to the voluntary payment doctrine).. . 13 See Vierkant v. AMCO Ins. Co., 543 N.W.2d 117,120 (Minn. App. 1996); see also Bank One v. Coates, 125 F.Supp.2d 819,831-32 (S.D. Miss. 2000). ,. Ottman v. Fadden, 575 NW.2d 593, 597 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 23 (1991)). 15 Vierkant, 543 N.W.2d at 120 4 P.39