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

QUESTION PRESENTED 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.