The Federal Arbitration Act331×331. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–Sixteen.
(FAA) requires courts to put in power agreements by deepest parties to resolve their disputes in arbitration fairly than litigation. No subject mighty evidence that Congress supposed the FAA to spend handiest in federal courtroom332×332. Sight Margaret L. Moses, Statutory Misconstruction: How the Supreme Court docket Created a Federal Arbitration Legislation Never Enacted by Congress, 34 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. Ninety 9, one zero one–13 (2006).
and handiest to commercial dealings,333×333. Sight id. at 108; Cir. Metropolis Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. one zero five, a hundred twenty 5–29 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
the Supreme Court docket has reinterpreted the laws for the reason that 1980s,334×334. Sight Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 283 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[O]ver the previous decade, the Court docket has abandoned all pretense of ascertaining congressional intent with appreciate to the Federal Arbitration Act, constructing as a substitute, case by case, an edifice of its bring collectively advent.”).
imposing it on impart courts335×335. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, Sixteen (1984).
and finding in it a characterize to put in power even one-sided arbitration contracts imposed on patrons and employees by company actors alive to to succor claims person, secret, and uncommon.336×336. Sight, e.g., Chronicle Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1619 (2018).
Emboldened by these victories, corporations bear begun drafting agreements with “limitless” phrases that purport to bind contributors in perpetuity to arbitrate any and all claims they would advise in opposition to a proper crew of counterparties.337×337. Sight in most cases David Horton, Limitless Arbitration Clauses, 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633 (2020) (coining the phrase “limitless arbitration clauses” and documenting their proliferation).
Just now not too long ago, in Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC,338×338. 977 F.3d 713 (Ninth Cir. 2020).
the Ninth Circuit declined to put in power such an settlement in opposition to an person plaintiff. Whereas the Revitch courtroom reached a right result, its reasoning arguably contravened impart laws and Supreme Court docket precedent, making the choice unlikely to toughen immense-based judicial rejection of these contracts. On the opposite hand, a separate concurrence within the case become as soon as more doctrinally sound and can merely on account of this fact gentle the design for future courts to succor limitless arbitration agreements unenforceable.

In early 2018, Jeremy Revitch filed a class action lawsuit in opposition to DIRECTV, LLC (DirecTV) in federal courtroom in California.339×339. Sight Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 18-cv-01127, 2018 WL 4030550, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018).
Revitch alleged that DirecTV had bombarded his cell phone with prerecorded adverts even supposing he had no doubt now not shared his number or consented to the calls.340×340. Sight Revitch, 977 F.3d at 715.
Pissed off by the intrusions, he sought damages for himself and other victims below the Telephone Shopper Protection Act.341×341. forty seven U.S.C. § 227; see Revitch, 977 F.3d at 715.
Because the litigation unfolded, DirecTV “indirectly uncovered” that Revitch had electronically signed a customer settlement with AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T) almost seven years earlier whereas sorting out at an AT&T retailer.342×342. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 715; see Revitch, 2018 WL 4030550, at *2.
That settlement contained a broadly worded arbitration clause that supposed to veil “all disputes and claims between” Revitch and AT&T and defined “AT&T” to consist of its “subsidiaries, . . . successors,” and, crucially, “affiliates.”343×343. Revitch, 2018 WL 4030550, at *three (emphasis uncared for).
Despite the incontrovertible fact that AT&T and DirecTV were separate corporations when Revitch signed the contract, they grew to change into “a long way away company cousins” when AT&T’s guardian firm got DirecTV four years later.344×344. Plaintiff-Appellee’s Answering Transient at 6, Revitch, 977 F.3d 713 (Ninth Cir. 2020) (No. 18-16823).
Citing this transaction, DirecTV claimed to be an “affiliate” of AT&T and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the contract.345×345. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 715.

A Justice of the Peace resolve presiding on behalf of the district courtroom denied DirecTV’s circulate.346×346. Revitch, 2018 WL 4030550, at *1.
The courtroom emphasised that, even though the FAA requires arbitration agreements to be enforced per their phrases, arbitration is, at its core, “strictly a subject of consent.”347×347. Identification. at *6 (quoting Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299 (2010) (inside of quotation marks uncared for)).
Thus, when serious about whether or now not to compel arbitration, a courtroom must settle “(1) whether or now not a sound settlement to arbitrate exists” (the “formation” prong) and, if that is the case, “(2) whether or now not the settlement encompasses the dispute at jam” (the “scope” prong).348×348. Identification. at *5 (quoting Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys. Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (Ninth Cir. 2000)).
Applying California impart contract laws, the courtroom held that no settlement existed between Revitch and DirecTV because Revitch could perchance now not bear supposed to conform to arbitrate with “an entity that grew to change into affiliated with AT&T . . . long after he entered into the distinctive contract by virtue of a unconditionally fortuitous occasion.”349×349. Identification. at *eleven.
Indeed, the courtroom defined, “[n]o cheap particular person” would bear performed so.350×350. Identification. at *15.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.351×351. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 721.
Writing for a divided panel, Exhaust O’Scannlain352×352. Exhaust O’Scannlain become as soon as joined by Exhaust McKeown.
started by restating the two-section test applied below.353×353. Sight Revitch, 977 F.3d at 716.
Starting with the formation prong, the courtroom acknowledged that the “standard definition” of “affiliate” would consist of DirecTV.354×354. Identification. at 717.

California laws requires contracts to be interpreted to effectuate the parties’ mutual intent, which is in general “settle[d] . . . ‘from the written phrases . . . alone,’” DirecTV argued that this finding become as soon as enough to deem it a occasion to Revitch’s contract.355×355. Identification. (quoting Kashmiri v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., sixty seven Cal. Rptr. 3d 635, 652 (Ct. App. 2007)).
But the inquiry didn’t stop there, because the panel understood California laws to allow courts to succor in mind extratextual components fancy the parties’ expectations when a contract’s written phrases would effect “absurd results.”356×356. Identification. (quoting Kashmiri, sixty seven Cal. Rptr. 3d at 652).
Here, the courtroom reasoned, the textual interpretation developed by DirecTV would attain right that by binding Revitch to arbitrate “any dispute with any company entity that happens to be got by AT&T” — even disputes entirely unrelated to the initial transaction and with corporations got long after he signed the distinctive contract.357×357. Identification.
Thus free of a text-handiest prognosis, the courtroom stumbled on that Revitch could perchance now not bear anticipated to be forced to arbitrate this dispute with DirecTV and concluded on that basis that no settlement had been formed.358×358. Identification. at 718.
The courtroom on account of this fact didn’t reach the scope prong.359×359. Sight id. at 719.

DirecTV had argued that the Supreme Court docket’s intervening decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela360×360. 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
required the panel to obtain the absurd results canon preempted by the FAA and to as a substitute resolve any ambiguities within the term “affiliates” in desire of arbitration.361×361. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 718.
The courtroom disagreed, explaining that the Lamps Plus Court docket — which held that the FAA preempts California’s rule that contractual ambiguities are to be construed in opposition to the drafter when the rule of thumb is cited to impose class arbitration procedures362×362. Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1417–19.
— so held because that rule required courts to succeed in “default” outcomes unsupported by correct consent.363×363. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 718.
In distinction, the courtroom defined, the absurd results canon is entirely well effective with the FAA since it helps courts “discern the mutual intent of the parties” and does so in a formula that would now not inherently hate arbitration agreements.364×364. Identification. at 719; see id. at 718.
Eventually, the courtroom acknowledged that its preserving created a circuit split, because the Fourth Circuit had just now not too long ago allowed DirecTV to put in power a customer’s settlement with AT&T on nearly identical info.365×365. Identification. at 719–20 (citing Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, 971 F.3d 284 (4th Cir. 2020)).

Exhaust O’Scannlain additionally concurred one at a time to elucidate that he would verify on the scope prong moreover.366×366. Identification. at 721 (O’Scannlain, J., concurring).
The FAA’s monstrous text, he defined, requires courts to compel arbitration handiest over disputes “bobbing up out of” the contract containing the arbitration clause or the transaction governed by that contract.367×367. Identification. (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2).
Noting the shortage of cases addressing the FAA’s “bobbing up out of” language, the concurrence analyzed identical language in other statutes and illustrious the absence of any Supreme Court docket precedent for compelling a occasion to arbitrate claims “wholly unrelated” to its contract, reasoning that the FAA wants to be learn now not to succeed in such claims.368×368. Identification. at 722; see id. at 722–23.
Because he stumbled on Revitch’s suit in opposition to DirecTV “wholly unrelated” to — and thus now not bobbing up out of — his settlement with AT&T, Exhaust O’Scannlain concluded that the FAA afforded the courtroom no energy to ship it to arbitration.369×369. Identification. at 724.

Exhaust Bennett dissented.370×370. Identification. at 724 (Bennett, J., dissenting).
In his leer, the formation prong become as soon as effortlessly cheerful because DirecTV become as soon as now an “affiliate” of AT&T and nothing within the contract’s text imposed a closing date on the term.371×371. Identification. at 725.
And for the reason that settlement lined “all disputes and claims,” Revitch’s suit necessarily fell inside of its scope.372×372. Identification.
But even though the term “affiliates” didn’t so clearly consist of later-got corporations fancy DirecTV, he argued, the courtroom erred in resolving that quiz at the formation prong.373×373. Sight id. at 726.
As an alternate, the courtroom must silent bear stumbled on a wisely formed settlement between Revitch and AT&T and then analyzed DirecTV’s predicament as a quiz of that settlement’s scope.374×374. Sight id. at 726–27. The majority rejected this argument as violating the usual contract laws precept that a nonsignatory occasion fancy DirecTV could perchance merely handiest put in power a contract “on a concept that ‘the laws [has] establishe[d] a privity’” between it and the signatory occasion — taking the prognosis right succor to the formation quiz the dissent sought to preserve a long way from. Identification. at 716 n.2 (majority concept) (alterations in customary) (emphasis uncared for) (quoting Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Residences, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 470 (Ct. App. 2009)).
That being the case, he persevered, any ambiguity must silent were controlled now not by the absurd results canon nonetheless by the Supreme Court docket’s characterize to resolve “doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable points . . . in desire of arbitration.”375×375. Identification. at 726 (Bennett, J., dissenting) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983)).
Eventually, Exhaust Bennett equipped two critiques of the panel’s application of the absurd results canon. First, he argued that California laws permits that rule to be invoked handiest when contractual language is ambiguous, which become as soon as now not the case right here.376×376. Identification. at 727.
Second, he argued that most’s reasoning “contravene[d] Supreme Court docket precedent” since it stumbled on absurdity within the prospect of “Revitch being forced to . . . litigate within the ‘wicked’ arbitral forum,” an prognosis at odds with the Court docket’s preserving that the FAA bans impart authorized guidelines that hate arbitration on their face or in application.377×377. Identification. at 728.

In refusing to learn Revitch’s contract with AT&T as extinguishing his right to sue DirecTV in courtroom, the Ninth Circuit averted an injustice. As students bear identified, even the most targeted arbitration agreements are on the total unfair to patrons.378×378. Sight, e.g., Deepak Gupta & Lina Khan, Arbitration as Wealth Switch, 35 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 499, 502 (2017) (arguing that forced arbitration drives wealth inequality); David Horton, Mass Arbitration and Democratic Legitimacy, eighty five U. Colo. L. Rev. 459, 464 (2014) (reviewing Margaret Jane Radin, Boilerplate: The Ravishing Print, Vanishing Rights, and the Rule of Legislation (2013)) (contending that particular person arbitration degrades democratic beliefs of justice).
Revitch’s contract become as soon as particularly problematic since it supposed to lengthen indefinitely into the future and veil all that you doubtlessly can factor in disputes with a proper array of counterparties — a result he completely could perchance now not bear anticipated or desired.379×379. Sight Revitch, 977 F.3d at 717; Horton, supra characterize 7, at 639–Forty.
Unfortunately, weaknesses within the courtroom’s reasoning leave its concept at chance of reversal by the Supreme Court docket, making it unlikely to inspire as a durable bulwark in opposition to limitless arbitration agreements. On the opposite hand, Exhaust O’Scannlain’s concurrence stands on firmer ground and can merely offer future courts a more doctrinally defensible path to the identical result.

The final result of Revitch become as soon as no doubt now not inevitable, because the Supreme Court docket has enormously restricted judges’ energy to refuse to compel arbitration at both the formation or scope prong. On formation, the Court docket has emphasised that even though the FAA preserves “in most cases appropriate contract defenses, reminiscent of fraud, duress, or unconscionability,”380×380. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (quoting Dr.’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996)).
it prohibits states from “singling out” arbitration agreements below authorized guidelines “appropriate handiest to [them].”381×381. Dr.’s Assocs., 517 U.S. at 687; see Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421, 1425 (2017).
Relating to scope, the Court docket has straightforwardly declared that “any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable points wants to be resolved in desire of arbitration.”382×382. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983).
Furthermore, the Court docket has held that even well-established, facially fair impart laws doctrines fancy unconscionability are preempted when applied as a design to “conflict with the FAA or frustrate its reason” of making arbitration agreements enforceable.383×383. Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 347 n.6; see Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1418 (2019). Scholars bear described this doctrine as a “disparate impact” identical old for arbitration clauses. Sight, e.g., Richard Frankel, Concepcion and Mis-Concepcion: Why Unconscionability Survives the Supreme Court docket’s Arbitration Jurisprudence, 2014 J. Disp. Resol. 225, 241.
To succor for Revitch, then, the panel had to obtain a technique spherical a “proper-statute”384×384. Salvatore U. Bonaccorso, Indicate, Teach Court docket Resistance to Federal Arbitration Legislation, sixty seven Stan. L. Rev. 1145, 1155 (2015).
overlaid with a doctrinal edifice with “[f]ew gaps . . . left to milk.”385×385. Indicate, Teach Courts and the Federalization of Arbitration Legislation, 134 Harv. L. Rev. 1184, 1201 (2020).

The courtroom made a courageous strive at threading this jurisprudential needle by fending off the scope inquiry’s pro-arbitration presumption and resolving the case at the nominally more forgiving formation step. Regrettably, this reach misfired in at the least two ways. First, the courtroom arguably misapplied California laws by invoking the “absurd results” canon no subject acknowledging that the language of Revitch’s settlement become as soon as now not ambiguous.386×386. Sight Revitch, 977 F.3d at 717–18.
Counting on a solitary assertion by an intermediate California appellate panel, the courtroom formulated the laws as allowing judges to succor in mind extratextual indicia of intent within the presence of both textual ambiguity or the prospect of absurd results.387×387. Identification. at 717 (“[W]e depend upon the ‘written phrases alone’ when the ‘contract language is obvious and speak and would now not result in absurd results.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Kashmiri v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., sixty seven Cal. Rptr. 3d 635, 652 (Ct. App. 2007))).
But, because the dissent illustrious, the statute cited for that proposition clearly prescribes a two-step inquiry by which courts could perchance merely succor in mind any doable absurdity handiest within the occasion that they first obtain contractual language ambiguous.388×388. Identification. at 727 (Bennett, J., dissenting) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1637 (West 1872)).
In treating ambiguity and absurd results as independently enough to glimpse beyond a contract’s text, the courtroom muddled the laws.

Second, the Supreme Court docket could perchance merely well leer the majority’s application of the absurd results canon as incompatible with AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,389×389. 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
which interpreted the FAA to preempt in most cases appropriate impart laws contract solutions after they’re applied “in a formula that disfavors arbitration.”390×390. Identification. at 341.
Looking ahead to this critique, the majority took danger to ground the “absurdity” of DirecTV’s interpretation within the beginning-endedness of the arbitration duty, fairly than within the “relative merits of arbitration in contrast to litigation.”391×391. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 719 n.three.
But this distinction is razor skinny, and it is now not easy to deem a courtroom reaching the identical result without counting on an unarticulated leer that arbitral boards are less hospitable to claimants.392×392. Sight id. at 728 (Bennett, J., dissenting) (“Why else would it be ‘absurd’ for a occasion to bear agreed to a in reality immense, forward-trying arbitration clause?”).
That leer, which the Supreme Court docket has repeatedly disclaimed,393×393. Sight, e.g., Shearson/Am. Specific Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 233 (1987) (“[T]he [previously dominant] mistrust of arbitration . . . is refined to sq. with the evaluate . . . that has prevailed [more recently].”).
is a long way more prone to rob hackles right here for the reason that Court docket has particularly reviewed AT&T’s arbitration clause and illustrious that aggrieved customers are “higher off below [its procedures] than” as class action plaintiffs.394×394. Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 352.
Thus, the Revitch courtroom’s effort to body its reasoning as in most cases appropriate is unlikely to place its preserving from a skeptical Court docket that has twice rejected purportedly fair California contract laws doctrines for “subtl[y]” focusing on arbitration.395×395. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1418 (2019) (quoting Chronicle Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1622 (2018)); see Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 352.

Furthermore, even though the courtroom’s decision stands, it risks exacerbating the broader jam of limitless arbitration clauses. Since the Supreme Court docket has construed the FAA to ban impart authorized guidelines making arbitration agreements more difficult to bring collectively than other contracts,396×396. Sight Indicate, supra characterize fifty five, at 1189, 1198.
the courtroom had to concede that it “could perchance [have] reach[d] at a decided conclusion” if the settlement had merely contained more speak language including “future” affiliates of AT&T.397×397. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 718.
Whereas this assertion makes no guarantees and is arguably dicta, it is crawl to inspire company attorneys to draft agreements with ever more explicitly limitless phrases. The revised clauses could perchance merely indirectly be held unenforceable, nonetheless their mere presence will seemingly deter injured patrons from bringing claims to courtroom within the intervening time.398×398. Sight Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, The Perverse Consequences of Disclosing Typical Terms, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 117, 121 (2017) (demonstrating empirically that patrons behold phrases contained in boilerplate language as “morally and legally professional in a technique that [they do not perceive] non-contractual policies”).
Taken collectively, these weaknesses will restrict Revitch’s worth for future courts in search of to reject unfairly gigantic arbitration clauses.

Despite the incontrovertible fact that Exhaust O’Scannlain’s concurrence didn’t raise the day, it introduced a promising line of assault which will well face as a lot as Supreme Court docket scrutiny. Prefer that his concurrence argued that the FAA — which commands courts to put in power agreements to arbitrate disputes “bobbing up out of” the contract containing the arbitration clause or the transaction it governs — would now not reach disputes “wholly unrelated” to that contract or transaction.399×399. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 721, 724 (O’Scannlain, J., concurring); see 9 U.S.C. § 2.
Recognizing this “contractual nexus”Four hundred×Four hundred. Sight Horton, supra characterize 7, at 643, 679–Eighty three.
requirement would severely restrict corporations’ skill to treat arbitration clauses signed in speak contexts as eternal, all-reason waivers of procedural rights. By limiting the fluctuate of arbitrable conflicts to those “tied . . . in some valuable formula to the parties’ settlement,” this reading of the FAA could perchance bound a protracted formula to stemming the tide of limitless arbitration agreements.401×401. Identification. at 643. The concurrence cited Professor David Horton widely for this concept nonetheless overpassed a key side of his argument. Whereas Horton understands the “contractual nexus” requirement to comprise in some sense on contract scope, he argues that it is easiest analyzed at the formation prong. Sight id. at 683–87. The honour matters for the reason that Supreme Court docket has in assorted places held that courts must put in power clauses in arbitration agreements that delegate the choice of scope-prong ambiguities to an arbitrator. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 528 (2019). In locating the contractual nexus prognosis at that prong, Exhaust O’Scannlain’s system would allow defendants with the foresight to consist of so-called “delegation clauses” of their agreements to bring collectively claimants out of courtroom — at the least within the starting set — by arguing that the contractual nexus prognosis is a job for the arbitrator.

And the contractual nexus concept could perchance bear steal at the Supreme Court docket. First, it is going to coexist with the Court docket’s zealously enforced characterize to resolve scope ambiguities in desire of arbitration, because it merely recognizes an outer restrict to that scope. Furthermore, the concept’s grounding in statutory language could perchance merely give it a combating chance sooner than the Court docket’s textualist majority. In fact, one among the handiest arguments in novel memory to jog the Court docket to curb the FAA’s enlargement centered on a identical rediscovery of a restrict embodied within the statute’s monstrous text. If so, New High Inc. v. Oliveira,402×402. 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019).
the Court docket held that neither standard speak nor pro-arbitration protection inclinations could perchance overcome the conclusion that the term “contracts of employment” within the FAA’s exception for “contracts of employment of . . . employees engaged in . . . interstate commerce”403×403. Identification. at 543–Forty four (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1).
embraced all “agreements to develop work,” now not right those of employees belief to be “employees” below as a lot as the moment employment laws.404×404. Identification. at 544. Namely, the Court docket held that the FAA didn’t require courts to put in power arbitration agreements imposed on interstate truck drivers, even supposing those drivers were technically engaged as self enough contractors, fairly than employees. Sight id. at 536, 543–Forty four.
Eventually, even though the Court docket has concededly compelled litigants to arbitrate disputes now not strictly bobbing up out of their contracts,405×405. Sight Horton, supra characterize 7, at 680 (conceding that dwelling of job discrimination claims are handled as arbitrable no subject now not bobbing up out of the contracts containing the parties’ arbitration agreements).
there remains to be room to give enact to the FAA’s congressionally prescribed boundaries by conserving “wholly unrelated” claims beyond its reach.406×406. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 723 (O’Scannlain, J., concurring) (“I were unable to detect any case by which the Supreme Court docket enforced an arbitration clause when the underlying claim become as soon as wholly unrelated to the contract by which the clause become as soon as contained.”).

For a protracted time, decrease courts bear struggled to face up to the Supreme Court docket’s pro-arbitration FAA jurisprudence.407×407. Sight Bonaccorso, supra characterize Fifty four, at 1156–Sixty 5.
They bear got almost universally failed, and the Court docket has as a substitute “doubled down on FAA enlargement,”408×408. Indicate, supra characterize fifty five, at 1198.
ushering arbitration deep into American lifestyles.409×409. Sight, e.g., Jessica Silver-Greenberg & Robert Gebeloff, Arbitration In every single dwelling, Stacking the Deck of Justice, N.Y. Instances (Oct. 31, 2015), over the place-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html [].
Whereas Revitch’s core preserving will seemingly attain minute to reverse this style, Exhaust O’Scannlain’s revival of the FAA’s “bobbing up out of” limitation could perchance merely designate priceless for courts confronting the company bar’s most modern arbitration excesses.