Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. California, et al.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the enforcement of “‘terms that specify with whom the parties choose to arbitrate their disputes.’” Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 506 (2018). In EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002), this Court held that a federal agency could (pursuant to a federal statute) seek individualized relief in court against an employer in relation to an employee that had signed a valid arbitration agreement. That decision harmonized two co-equal federal statutes. In this case, the California Court of Appeal joined the courts of five other States in reading Waffle House to permit state officials to seek individualized relief on behalf of people who agreed to submit their claims for such relief to arbitration—an extension of Waffle House that conflicts with decisions of the Third and Ninth Circuits, as well as this Court’s long line of decisions establishing that the FAA preempts “state-law rules that stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of [its] objectives.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 343 (2011). The question presented is: Does the FAA allow state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims?