Is the Federal Arbitration Act's goal of "providing efficient
streamlined procedures tailored to the type of dispute,"
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 334-35
(2011), compromised by allowing a defendant to forego
arbitration against named class representative plaintiffs, and
then successfully assert arbitration years later against the
subsequently certified class members?

Is the Federal Arbitration Act's goal of 'providing efficient streamlined procedures tailored to the type of dispute' compromised by allowing a defendant to forego arbitration against named class representative plaintiffs, and then successfully assert arbitration years later against the subsequently certified class members?