The Supreme Court continues to have a lot to say about class-action jurisprudence. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court offered another missive on class-arbitration waivers and affirmed its support of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Though the decision concerned waivers appearing in a consumer contract for satellite services, DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia offers insight to anyone seeking to enforce a consumer contract containing a class-arbitration waiver. DirecTV is somewhat of a sequel to AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, a 2011 decision in which the Supreme Court determined that the FAA preempted California state law prohibiting class-arbitration waivers. The biggest surprise, however, is that Justice Breyer authored DirecTV in a 6-3 decision, even though he dissented in Concepcion. The language of the DirecTV contract bound the parties to individual arbitration where “the law of your state” permitted class-arbitration waiver. The contract also professed to follow the FAA. However, when the California plaintiffs signed the contract containing the class-arbitration waiver, Concepcion had not yet been decided. So, in effect, at the time the parties signed the contract, California law did not permit class-arbitration waiver—because the FAA had not yet been determined to pre-empt state law. But, once Concepcion was decided, DirecTV moved to compel arbitration. The California court of appeal interpreted “the law of your state” language to include only California laws without applying preemption from the FAA as directed by Concepcion. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan), found that the state court could not avoid Concepcion by interpreting “law of your state” to include invalid laws. Justice Thomas dissented and would have found that the FAA does not apply in state courts. In a heated dissent, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, would not have applied the FAA because she did not want to further “disarm consumers, leaving them without effective access to justice.” Rather, Ginsburg would have construed the contract against the drafter—DirecTV—and interpreted the “ambiguous” phrase, “law of your state,” as the court of appeal had. Therefore, she would have invalidated the class-action arbitration waiver and sent the parties back to the trial court to litigate the matter as a class action. Although the decision focused on the specific language in the waiver, the undercurrent of the decision could not be more clear: The FAA is the law of the land, until Congress says otherwise. But, since Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has shown interest in eliminating class-arbitration waivers from consumer’s financial contracts, don’t expect this to be the last word on class-arbitration waivers.