Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1407 only held that ambiguity could not be construed against drafter for purposes of determining whether the parties had agreed to classwide arbitration.  It did not hold that the construction against drafter principle is inapplicable to other types of ambiguities in the arbitration agreement.  In any event, there was no ambiguity in this arbitration agreement’s poison pill clause, which clearly stated that if any portion of the class and representative suit waiver provision was invalid, the entire controversy was to be litigated in court.  Here, after Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, part of the waiver of representative (i.e., PAGA claim) waiver might be valid, but part (non-individual claims) was not.  Hence, under the poison pill provision, the entire controversy had to be litigated in court.)