This Court has repeatedly held that the Federal
Arbitration Act "protect[s]" agreements "to use individualized rather than class or collective action procedures," and that "courts may not allow a contract defense to reshape traditional individualized arbitration." Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621,
1623 (2018).

But the California Supreme Court has interpreted
California's consumer-protection laws to authorize
"public injunctive relief'—which it defines as relief
that "prevent[s] further harm to the public at large"
and not "[rJelief that has the primary purpose or effect
of redressing or preventing injury to an individual
plaintiff." McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85, 90
(Cal. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). And that court
has held that "a provision in a predispute arbitration
agreement that waives the right to seek this statutory
remedy * * * is contrary to California public policy and
is thus unenforceable under California law." Id. at 87.

The question presented is whether California's
public-policy rule declining to enforce agreements for
individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks
a public injunction is preempted by the FAA.

Whether California's public-policy rule declining to enforce agreements for individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks a public injunction is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act