Is California's McGill rule preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act?

QUESTION PRESENTED Is California’s McGill rule, under which agreements for individualized arbitration are invalidated when a plaintiff seeks public injunctive relief, preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., given this Court’s holdings that: e the FAA requires courts to “enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms,” Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1413 (2019); ¢ arbitration agreements with terms requiring “individualized” arbitration are “protect[ed] pretty absolutely” by the FAA, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018); ¢ state law is preempted if it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the FAA, AT&T Mobility LLC uv. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011); e¢ states cannot carve out particular categories of disputes from the operation of the FAA, Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 532 (2012); and e state courts “must abide by the FAA, which is ‘the supreme Law of the Land,’ U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, and by the opinions of this Court interpreting that law,” Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard, 568 U.S. 17, 18 (2012)? (i)