In the case of DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA (2015), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of DIRECTV, Inc., overturning a California state court decision that had invalidated an arbitration agreement between DIRECTV and its customers. The dispute arose when two customers filed a class-action lawsuit against DIRECTV for early termination fees they believed were illegal under California law. However, their service agreements included an arbitration clause prohibiting class action suits and requiring individual arbitrations instead if "the law of your state" made such waivers unenforceable - which was true at the time but later changed by federal precedent set by AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion (2011). The lower courts interpreted this phrase to mean that since California's previous laws would have found it unenforceable, the entire arbitration agreement was voided despite current federal law stating otherwise. But on appeal to SCOTUS, it held 6-3 that 'law of your state' referred to valid state laws not preempted by federal ones; thus as per Federal Arbitration Act preemption over inconsistent state rules regarding contract enforcement & interpretation principles applied here too - so these consumers must individually arbitrate their disputes with DirecTV rather than pursue collective legal actions.

In the dissenting opinion for DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority's interpretation of the contract was incorrect and overly broad in its application of federal arbitration law to state court decisions. They contended that California courts had a valid reason to hold unenforceable class-arbitration waivers tied to an invalidated provision under state law at the time of agreement formation. The dissenters believed this case should not be treated as one involving preemption by federal law but rather as a matter concerning contractual intent within specific circumstances defined by state laws when contracts were formed. They emphasized respect for states' authority over contract enforcement and criticized what they saw as unwarranted judicial activism favoring arbitration.