I suspect class actions attorneys would get excited by this, because of the extra fees they can charge. I suspect the process would now go something like this:

I suspect class actions attorneys would get excited by this, because of the extra fees they can charge. I suspect the process would now go something like this: 1. Some people talk to a class action attorney about a class action suit. 2. Attorney finds a class and a cause and moves forward on suit 3. AT&T objects, possibly countersues 4. Attorney now has small-to-medium sized fight over non-enforceability of the clause 5. Class action suit goes ahead as planned It's steps three and four which are new, and require more lawyering by the class action attorney - who will no-doubt do it, since they wouldn't have started the class action to being with if they hadn't thought they'd win. As for how this compares to mandatory arbitration clauses, the theory behind them is that people can get similar levels of justice through that process as they can through the courts, with less cost and general overhead required. Preventing class action suits, however, takes away a form of legal remedy - the class action - and doesn't replace it with something similar. There's no legal theory like this behind this clause; it's pretty blatantly about taking away a form of legal recourse without replacing it. I am pretty sure a clause like this has never been tried before the courts, but if it was, my money would be on it being thrown out rather quickly.