In Alltel Corp. v. Rosenow, the Arkansas Supreme Court held a contract between Alltel Corporation ("Alltel") and its costumers that contained an arbitration provision was unenforceable because the contract lacked mutuality. The Court reasoned because Alltel was the only party that was able to pursue judicial remedies without waiving its rights under the contract, there was no mutuality. As such, the contract could not be enforced according to the Court. Additionally, while Alltel challenged this on the premise that it violated AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion because Arkansas law only required mutuality in contracts for arbitration, the Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that mutuality in contracts was a requirement for every contract in Arkansas, not merely for arbitration agreements and therefore met the requirements of Concepcion. The Court's decision in Alltel represents one of the first attempts by a state supreme court to distinguish and limit Concepcion in order to provide some protection to consumers. It should be noted, however, that the Court failed to consider the United States Supreme Court decisions in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co and progeny of cases in its discussion. Thus, its ultimate holding directly conflicts with Prima Paint precedent and must be viewed as a decision that incorrectly limits the arbitration process in contradiction of Supreme Court precedent.
Nathaniel Conti, Arkansas Supreme Court Holds Invalid Arbitration Agreement For Lack of Mutuality, 7 Y.B. Arb. & Mediation 204 (2015).