Distinguishing Clifford v. Quest Software Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 745, this decision holds that plaintiff sought a public injunction because unlike Clifford which sought relief on behalf of the defendant’s relatively small group of employees, the plaintiff in this case sought to enjoin the defendant retailer from continuing business practices that would affect other members of the public (but not the plaintiff who was unlikely to deal with the defendant in the future).  The decision also holds that the arbitration clause offended McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 because it required all disputes to be referred to arbitration while prohibiting the arbitrator from granting class or representative relief.  It also reads a poison pill provision as expressing the parties’ intent that there should be no arbitration if class or other representative relief were exempted from arbitration and allowed to be tried in court–thus precluding an implied exception for inarbitrable claims for public injunctive relief.