> It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; ther

> It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; there's no discretion allowed. I'm not a lawyer, but there seems to definitely be some discretion allowed. In fact, the McGill rule is often cited as being a litmus test[1]. Honestly, in the Tesla case, and why I said it's wild, is because Tesla is still selling cars touting full self driving[2]. The injunction here would presumably bar Tesla from selling (or at least advertising) FSD in the interest of public good. In other words, I think the judge got it wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misunderstanding something, but that's my take. [1] https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-era-mcgill-arbitration-ca-hodges-v-comcast/ https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-er... [2] https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial