Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule which precludes the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate claims on an individual basis when a state declares that a private litigant has an unwaivable right to pursue certain claims on a representative basis

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) directs courts to “enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1619 (2018). As this Court has repeatedly made clear in recent years, the FAA “protect[s] pretty absolutely” agreements calling for “one-on-one arbitration” using “individualized ** * procedures.” Jd. at 1619, 1621. Yet the California Supreme Court has created a broad exception to the FAA’s pro-arbitration mandate, holding that any arbitration agreement requiring the individualized arbitration of claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 is unenforceable as contrary to California’s public policy. See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). The Ninth Circuit, in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 426 (9th Cir. 2015), and again in the decision below, has held that the FAA does not preempt the Iskanian rule. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule which precludes the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate claims on an individual basis when a state declares that a private litigant has an unwaivable right to pursue certain claims on a representative basis.