DZ RESERVE and CAIN MAXWELL (d/b/a Max Martialis), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC.

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATION MOTIONS AND THE EXISTENCE

OF AN APPLICABLE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT HERE Meta seeks arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Dkt. No. 472. The FAA’s “overarching purpose . . . is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Under Section 4 of the FAA, the Court’s role is generally “limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute ate issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes both factors, the district court ‘must order the parties to proceed to arbitration only in accordance with the terms of their agreement.’” McBurnie v. Acceptance Now, LLC, 643 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (quoting Lifescan, 363 F.3d at 1012), aff’d sub nom. in pertinent part, McBurnie v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, 95 F.4th 1188…