This decision holds that the district court erred in denying Comcast’s motion to compel arbitration even though its arbitration clause precluded customers from litigating public injunction claims in any forum.  First, the decision holds that the mere presence of the clause in the arbitration agreement does not automatically invalidate the arbitration agreement for all purposes–but rather only in cases that actually seek a public injunction.  Second, it holds that Mejia v. DACM, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 691 and Maldonado v. Fast Auto Loans (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 710 misinterpreted McGill, improperly calling private injunctions public–and are likely not to be followed by the California Supreme Court.  Under McGill and other controlling decisions, a public injuction within the meaning of McGill is limited to forward-looking injunctions that seek to prevent future violations of law for the benefit of the general public as a whole, as opposed to a particular class of persons, and that do so without the need to consider the individual claims of any non-party. Any broader construction of “public injunction” would run afoul of the FAA   And the fact that the public may incidentally be benefitd by an injunction that primarily benefits plaintiff or class members is not enough to make an injunction request public rather than private.  Furthermore, even if the California Supreme Court would follow Mejia and Maldonado, the FAA would preempt any defense to arbitration of that sort of injunctive relief claim that primarily benefits a defined class of persons.