Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/class-actions/practice/2017/mcgill-v-citibank/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:12:33+00:00

Document:
The ruling comes down in McGill v. Citibank, N.A.
On April 6, 2017, in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., the California Supreme Court held that that predispute arbitration provisions aimed at public injunctive relief that result in barring certain statutory claims for such relief are unenforceable. McGill applies to claims for public injunctive relief sought under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; the unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; and the false advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
McGill lost her job in 2008, and Citibank allegedly failed to honor the terms of the credit protection agreement. She filed suit in 2011, and pursuant to the arbitration clause, Citibank moved to compel arbitration. Applying the Broughton-Cruz rule (which renders arbitration clauses requiring arbitration injunctive relief claims brought for the public’s benefit unenforceable), the trial court ordered arbitration of McGill’s claims other than those seeking injunctive relief under the CLRA, the UCL, and false advertising law. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded “for the trial court to order all of McGill’s claims to arbitration” under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). The California Supreme Court granted McGill’s petition for review of this decision.
Consequently, claims for public injunctive relief—injunctive relief with a primary effect of prohibiting acts that threaten the general public—brought under California's CLRA, UCL, or false advertising law are unlikely to be compelled to arbitration, particularly if doing so would preclude any relief on those claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1750
 § 17500
 § 17500
 v.