OPINION

STOWERS, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Two credit card holders defaulted on their accounts, and the issuing bank1 elected to litigate debt-collection actions. After courts entered default judgments against both card holders, the card holders filed new and separate suits alleging that the bank violated the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA) during the earlier debt collection actions. The bank moved in each case to arbitrate the UTPA claims, and the superior court stayed the UTPA litigation and ordered arbitration. We must decide whether the bank waived its right to demand arbitration of the subsequent UTPA claims by litigating the debt-collection claims. Because we conclude that the two claims were not sufficiently closely related, we hold that the bank did not waive its right to demand arbitration of the separate UTPA claims. But we also conclude that it was error for the superior court to interpret the arbitration agreement on the question of the availability of statewide injunctive relief: the interpretation of an arbitration agreement is in the first instance a matter for the arbitrator.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A. Hudson v. Citibank

In April 1999 Janet Hudson opened a Citibank credit card account. The original terms of the Card Agreement did not contain an arbitration clause. In 2001 Citibank mailed Hudson a "Change-in-Terms" form along with her periodic statement. The form included an arbitration clause that allowed either party to "elect mandatory, binding arbitration" of "any claim, dispute, or controversy" (Claims). The arbitration clause stated: "All Claims are subject to arbitration, no matter what legal theory they are based on or what remedy ... they seek. A party who initiates a proceeding in court may elect arbitration with respect to any Claim advanced in that proceeding by any other party." The clause continued:

The clause also asserted that "[a]ny questions about whether Claims are subject to arbitration shall be resolved by interpreting this arbitration provision in the broadest way the law will allow it to be enforced." Finally, the clause stated that "Claims must be brought in the name of an individual person or entity and must proceed on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis." Hudson was given the opportunity to opt out of the Change in Terms and did not.

Hudson fell behind on her payments, and in November 2010 Citibank — represented by Alaska Law Offices — filed a collection action in the Kenai District Court seeking the $24,170.24 that Hudson owed. Hudson did not appear in the action, and the court entered a default judgment. Alaska Law Offices moved for attorney's fees under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82, which allows the prevailing party in a default judgment to recover either its reasonable attorney's fees or 10% of the judgment, whichever is less.2 Alaska Law Offices requested 10% attorney's fees, arguing that its actual attorney's fees for the default judgment were $4,834.05, exactly 20% of the recovery. The court granted Alaska Law Office's motion and awarded $2,417 in attorney's fees.

In August 2011 Hudson filed a class-action complaint in the superior court, alleging that Citibank, Alaska Law Offices, and Clayton Walker (an attorney at Alaska Law Offices) violated the UTPA by asking the court for attorney's fees in excess of the "reasonable" fee allowed under Rule 82. Hudson sought damages and prospective injunctive relief under the "private attorney general" provision of the UTPA. Citibank promptly moved to stay the action and to compel arbitration on an individual basis. The superior court granted Citibank's motion to compel arbitration, but held that Hudson could be awarded statewide injunctive relief by the arbitrator.

B. Stewart v. Midland Funding LLC

Cynthia Stewart opened a Citibank credit card account in 2002 with the same arbitration provision as Hudson's. Stewart fell behind on her payments, and in December 2010 Midland Funding, which had purchased Stewart's account from Citibank, initiated an action in Anchorage District Court to collect the debt. Alaska Law Offices represented Midland Funding in the proceeding. The district court entered default judgment against Stewart, who failed to appear. Alaska Law Offices argued that Midland Funding's actual attorney's fees in the case were $739.04, again 20% of the recovery, and asked for 10% attorney's fees under Rule 82. The district court awarded the requested fees.

Stewart later filed an action in the superior court alleging that Midland Funding and Alaska Law Offices violated the UTPA by using a contingency fee arrangement as their "reasonable" fees under Rule 82. The defendants moved to stay the action and to compel arbitration. In July 2012, the superior court stayed the action and compelled arbitration "according to the same terms ordered by this court in Hudson v. Citibank."

C. Petition for Review

Hudson3 petitioned for review and we granted the petition on three issues: (1) whether Citibank waived its right to arbitrate the UTPA claims by litigating the debt-collection actions in court; (2) the extent of any waiver; and (3) whether the superior court erred in holding that the arbitrator could issue statewide injunctive relief.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Citibank argues that waiver is a factual issue that should be reviewed deferentially, while Hudson argues that waiver is a mixed question of law and fact that should ultimately be reviewed de novo. There is conflicting Alaska precedent on the issue,4 but it is clear that the majority of jurisdictions treat arbitration waiver as a mixed question of law and fact.5 We believe that the mixed question of law and fact standard accurately reflects the nature of the inquiry: the superior court must find the pertinent facts — if they are in dispute — and then correctly apply the law to those facts.

Where the facts are not in dispute on appeal, as here, we must decide whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard to the undisputed facts.6 On questions of law we are "not bound by the lower court's decision."7 Rather, we apply de novo review, "adopting the rule of law that is `most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.'"8

IV. DISCUSSION

For the reasons that follow we agree with the superior court that Citibank did not waive its right to arbitrate the UTPA claims by litigating the debt-collection actions, but we hold that the superior court erred when it decided the question whether the arbitrator could issue statewide injunctive relief — this question presents an issue of interpretation of the arbitration agreement that should be decided in the first instance by the arbitrator.

A. Citibank Did Not Waive Its Right To Arbitrate Hudson's UTPA Claims.

1. Federal law controls waiver by litigation conduct.

As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether Alaska law or federal law should be applied to determine if Citibank waived its right to demand arbitration.9 The answer to this question depends on which provision of the Federal Arbitration Act10 provides the basis for waiver by litigation conduct. Hudson argues that waiver is a defense under § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the savings clause), which calls for the application of state law.11 Citibank argues that waiver arises under § 3 (the default clause), which calls for the application of federal law.12

When it enacted the Federal Arbitration Act, "Congress intended to establish a uniform federal law over contracts which fall within its scope."13 Thus, "if the Arbitration Act is deemed applicable, federal law applies in construing and enforcing an arbitration clause, even in those cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity."14 The default clause — § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act — directs a court to stay proceedings and order arbitration so long as the "the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration."15 If waiver by litigation conduct arises under § 3 of the Arbitration Act, federal law applies.16 But the savings clause — § 2 of the Arbitration Act — provides that arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."17 State law, not federal law, is applicable when a court is considering a defense under § 2 that is grounds for "the revocation of [the] contract."18

Whether waiver by litigation conduct arises under § 2 or § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act has rarely been explicitly considered by courts. Many federal courts apply federal law while using default and waiver language interchangeably, and state courts generally apply state law while using waiver language only.19 According to one commentator, "There is general agreement among the circuit courts that the term `default' in Section 3 should, under appropriate circumstances, be read to include waiver of the right to arbitrate by participation in litigation."20 In many cases there is little difference between the tests under state and federal law, so the distinction is not usually a crucial one.21

We conclude that waiver by litigation conduct is a defense arising under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act such that federal law applies. We believe that waiver is not a defense that gives rise to "the revocation of [a] contract" under § 2.22 Waiver is a defense that may make a contract unenforceable, but it does not traditionally give rise to the right to revoke the contract.23 As Justice Thomas explained in his concurrence to AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, "The use of only `revocation' [in § 2's savings clause] and the conspicuous omission of `invalidation' and `nonenforcement' suggest that the exception does not include all defenses applicable to any contract but rather some subset of those defenses."24 Again, waiver is not a defense traditionally included in the "subset" of revocation defenses.25 Strengthening this position, when the Supreme Court has listed defenses under § 2, it has only listed defenses that are traditionally grounds for the revocation of a contract: fraud, duress, and unconscionability.26

It is true that the Supreme Court has used language that arguably sanctions the use of state law for all defenses to the arbitrability of contracts. For example, in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, the Court explained, "`[S]tate law,' therefore, is applicable to determine which contracts are binding under § 2 and enforceable under § 3 `if that law arose to govern issues concerning the validity, revocability, and enforceability of contracts generally.'"27 But in Arthur Andersen the Court was not interpreting § 2. Instead, it was focused on allowing a non-party beneficiary to a contract to invoke § 3 to enforce the Federal Arbitration Act arbitration clause in an agreement.28 The remainder of the Court's analysis focused upon § 3. We think that these statements do not sweep waiver, a defense giving rise to the non-enforcement of a contract provision, into the category of defenses that are grounds for revocation of the contract. Consequently, we hold that waiver arises under § 3 and federal law applies.

There is no uniformly accepted federal rule to determine whether a party seeking arbitration has waived its right to arbitration, but the circuit courts generally consider the following elements: (1) knowledge of the right to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that right; and (3) prejudice to the opposing party because of those acts.29

The amount of prejudice required varies among the circuits.30 We generally agree with the Seventh Circuit's approach set out in St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, Inc. v. Disco Aluminum Products Co. that "where it is clear that a party has forgone its right to arbitrate, a court may find waiver even if that decision did not prejudice the non-defaulting party."31 We conclude that "a court may consider prejudice to the [party opposing arbitration] as a relevant factor among the circumstances that the court examines in deciding whether the moving party has taken action inconsistent with the agreement to arbitrate."32 The essential question is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, and giving due regard to the strong federal policy favoring arbitration33 and disfavoring an inference of waiver, the alleged waiving party's participation in litigation evidences an intention to waive that right or is so inconsistent with the right to arbitrate that it is contrary to any other intention than waiver.

2. Citibank did not waive its right to arbitrate the UTPA claims because the totality of the circumstances does not evidence an intention to waive its right to arbitrate.

In this case Citibank filed a debt-collection suit in state court, and after prevailing it was awarded attorney's fees; Hudson later filed a separate action based on the alleged unfair trade practices associated with the attorney's fees award. Citibank then moved to arbitrate Hudson's separate action.

We conclude that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Citibank's decision to litigate its debt collection claim and ask for attorney's fees did not evidence an intent to waive its right to arbitrate the different, more complex UTPA claim. First, it is well accepted that "the law favors arbitration"34 and "waiver is not to be lightly inferred."35 All doubts regarding the occurrence of waiver should be resolved in favor of arbitration.36 And § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act provides that if a suit is brought on an issue that is referable to arbitration and one party moves to have the issue arbitrated, the trial court "shall ... stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration."37

Second, the Arbitration Agreement governing the relationship between the parties allowed either party to "elect mandatory, binding arbitration" of "any claim, dispute, or controversy." The arbitration clause stated: "All Claims are subject to arbitration, no matter what legal theory they are based on or what remedy ... they seek. A party who initiates a proceeding in court may elect arbitration with respect to any Claim advanced in that proceeding by any other party." The clause continued:

The clause also asserted that "[a]ny questions about whether Claims are subject to arbitration shall be resolved by interpreting this arbitration provision in the broadest way the law will allow it to be enforced." Finally, the clause stated that "Claims must be brought in the name of an individual person or entity and must proceed on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis." The text of the Arbitration Agreement clearly provides that Citibank was authorized under its contract with Hudson to seek arbitration on claims distinct from its original debt collection action and its request for attorney's fees.38

Third, a party may waive its right to arbitrate separate claims, but the claims must be closely related in order for the party's act in bringing suit on one claim to be inconsistent with the existing right to arbitrate another claim.39 One circuit has held claims were waived when "basically only one controversy exists between the parties."40 And another has held that a party waived arbitration when matters were "so closely related as to form what is really a single controversy" because the claims involved the "same facts and legal issues."41 Another way of saying this is that the claims are "intertwined" and that the "fact finder would necessarily have to resolve fact issues common to both."42 While being brought in separate actions makes it more likely that two claims are not "intertwined," the filing of separate actions alone does not make the claims unrelated.43

We conclude that Citibank's decision to litigate its simple debt-collection action does not convey that it also intended to forgo arbitration on a different, more complex UTPA claim. The UTPA claim broadens the scope of the proceeding by such a magnitude that it fundamentally transforms the litigation.44 The evidence and legal theories included in the two different claims would have little if any overlap.45 The bank's claim for recovery of the debt would center on the language of the contract and the breach of the cardholder's duty to pay, while the cardholder's UTPA claim would involve attorney's fees practices, e.g., whether Citibank entered into a contingency fee contract with its collections attorneys and whether a contingency fee is a permissible basis for recovering attorney's fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82's default judgment fee provision.46 The claims did not arise out of the same transaction; one arose from the credit card contract and one arose from the bank's fee agreement with its lawyers and post-litigation attorney's fees motions.47

Other courts considering similar fact patterns have likewise held that a debt collection proceeding does not waive arbitration of a later consumer-protection claim. A federal district court in Michigan noted that "[n]umerous courts across the country have found that commencing a separate debt collection lawsuit does not, on its own, waive the right to arbitration."48 In Fields v. Howe, a case from the Southern District of Indiana, the court held that "[t]he fact that the present action arose because of Discover's allegedly improper conduct in the course of [the debt-collection action] does not render this cause one and the same as Discover's state court case."49 The court explained, "The state court case is a collection action — a case initiated by Discover; the federal court case is an action for alleged violation of federal and state laws — a case initiated by Fields."50 And in Funderburke v. Midland Funding, L.L.C. a federal district court in Kansas held that a debt-collection action did not waive the right to demand arbitration of a later-filed consumer-protection claim.51 We agree with these courts.

Hudson relies on Midwest Window Systems, Inc. v. Amcor Industries, Inc.,52 a case from the Seventh Circuit. In that case, Midwest Window and Amcor agreed that Amcor would make all of its pending deliveries and Midwest Window would issue promissory notes for the pending orders.53 Unfortunately for Midwest Window, Amcor did not make any of the deliveries but still went to court and received default judgment on the notes.54 Midwest Window promptly filed a separate action alleging breach of the contract and fraud, which Amcor moved to arbitrate.55 Midwest Window re-opened the promissory-note case and the court consolidated the two cases.56 On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Amcor's action to reduce the notes to judgment waived arbitration of the second proceeding — the breach of contract claims. It found that the issues in the breach of contract action and in the debt-collection action were similar enough that "basically only one controversy exists between the parties."57

But Midwest Window is distinguishable. The majority of the claims at issue in that case were breach of contract claims all arising from the same contract. The fraud claims on the notes were mainly incidental to these claims. Thus the issue was whether the two suits — one for payment and one for performance, both on the same contract — were related. The Seventh Circuit reasonably concluded they were related. The two proceedings concerned the "same facts and legal issues"58 — facts relating to the wording and origination of the contract. Here, however, Hudson does not argue that the underlying contract was fraudulently induced or that she did not owe the debt. The evidence and legal issues central to the two controversies do not overlap. The UTPA proceeding would feature testimony relating to the standard for reasonable attorney's fees in debt-collection actions, the hours actually worked by Alaska Law Offices, and the general practice of attorneys in similar types of cases. The debt collection proceeding would rely on the credit card agreement and evidence of Hudson's failure to pay her debts.

We conclude that Citibank's debt collection claims and Hudson's UTPA attorney's fees claims are not sufficiently closely related such that they would be considered only one controversy. Given this conclusion, and giving due regard to the strong federal policy resolving all doubts in favor of arbitration, we also conclude that Citibank's filing a state court action to recover its debt did not evidence a clear intent to waive its right to arbitrate a subsequent UTPA claim. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances — particularly given the language of the arbitration provision and the unrelatedness of the two sets of litigation — we hold that Citibank did not waive its right to arbitrate Hudson's UTPA attorney's fees claim and affirm this aspect of the superior court's decision.

B. It Was Error To Hold That The Arbitrator Could Issue Statewide Injunctive Relief.

The superior court concluded, notwithstanding the explicit language of the Arbitration Agreement providing that "the arbitrator may award relief only on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis," that under the UTPA Hudson had a non-waivable right to pursue relief on a statewide basis. By drawing a distinction between the right to litigate a claim and the right to pursue a type of relief, the court held that the arbitrator could grant statewide relief.

The Supreme Court has been exceedingly clear that parties to an arbitration agreement may not be subjected to procedures for which they did not bargain. In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Supreme Court decided whether class arbitration was available when the contract was silent on the issue.59 The Court held that parties may choose the type of arbitration they wish to employ and with whom they want to arbitrate, and courts must "give effect to the contractual rights and expectations of the parties."60 But because the arbitration agreement was silent on the availability of class arbitration in Stolt-Nielsen, the Court held that class arbitration was not available because a "party may not be compelled under the [Arbitration Act] to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so."61 And in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court struck down a California rule of decision because it allowed consumers to demand class arbitration even when it was prohibited by their arbitration agreements.62 The Court held that this violated the central tenant of its arbitration precedent: to "ensur[e] that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms."63

We do not need to decide whether the arbitration agreement in this appeal prohibits statewide injunctive relief. The interpretation of an arbitration agreement is a question for arbitration.64 For example, in Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the question whether public injunctive relief could be granted in a student loan controversy was initially a question for the arbitrator.65 It was error for the superior court to decide that the arbitrator could order statewide injunctive relief. We vacate the court's decision: on remand the issue of the availability and scope of injunctive relief must be referred to arbitration.

V. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the superior court's order staying court proceedings and submitting the dispute to arbitration, but we REVERSE and VACATE the superior court's ruling that the arbitrator can order statewide injunctive relief, and we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MAASSEN, Justice, with whom FABE, Chief Justice, joins, dissenting.

The determinative issue in this case is whether Citibank's claim for attorney's fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 is "closely related" to Janet Hudson's claim in response: that Citibank's attorney's fees claim is greatly inflated, violates the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA), and entitles Hudson to statutory remedies. I believe the attorney's fees claim and the UTPA-based response to it are indeed closely related. For that reason, and because the language of the parties' contract has no effect on the court's authority to find that a party waived arbitration through its use of the judicial process, I would hold that Citibank, by deliberately bringing its attorney's fees claim in Alaska's courts and pursuing it to judgment, waived its right to arbitrate Hudson's factual and legal challenges to the claim's basis and amount. I therefore dissent from the court's holding today.

A. Hudson's UTPA Claim Based On Citibank's Rule 82 Claim Is Closely Related To Citibank's Rule 82 Claim.

Citibank's complaint against Hudson demanded not only "[a] money judgment in the amount of $24[,]170.24" but also "Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82 Attorney[']s fees" in an unspecified amount.1 After securing a default, Citibank filed an affidavit in which it claimed $4,834.05 in "actual attorney[']s fees"; it noted that this amount exceeded the ten percent of the judgment allowed by the Rule 82 schedule and therefore requested that lesser amount — $2,417.02 — instead. There is no question but that Citibank intentionally put both its entitlement to Rule 82 attorney's fees and their amount at issue in its lawsuit and thereby waived the right to arbitrate the Rule 82 claim.2

Hudson did not appear in the collection suit. She did not object to the fees award until later, when she filed her class-action complaint alleging that the fees claimed by Citibank, in her case and others, exceeded the amounts allowed by Rule 82 and violated the UTPA. That her objections were raised in a later lawsuit does not matter to whether the relevant claims are "closely related," as the court agrees:3 In determining whether the party demanding arbitration has already indicated an intent to litigate the same legal and factual issues, "[i]t is irrelevant that the prior litigation occurred as part of a separate action or in a different court."4 What matters, in the words of the court today, is whether the attorney's fees claim and the response to it are "so closely related as to form what is really a single controversy" because they involve the "same facts and legal issues";5 in other words, whether the claims are "intertwined" and the "fact finder would necessarily have to resolve fact issues common to both."6

The court's application of this test today goes astray, in my view, when it contrasts "[t]he evidence and legal theories included in the two different claims" — the debt collection action and the UTPA claim — and concludes that they "have little if any overlap."7 The court is contrasting the wrong two claims. Citibank did not merely sue to collect a debt; it also made a claim for Rule 82 attorney's fees, which — as the court points out — had a wholly separate evidentiary and legal basis.8 The proper focus of today's inquiry is on the overlap between Citibank's claim for Rule 82 attorney's fees and Hudson's UTPA claim raised in response to it.9 The evidentiary overlap between these two claims is close to complete;10 a "fact finder would necessarily have to resolve fact issues common to both,"11 i.e., whether Citibank misstated its fees. A victory for Hudson in her later lawsuit would impugn the legitimacy of Citibank's judgment in its earlier lawsuit. Indeed, the two claims are inextricably intertwined even as the court describes them:

One simply cannot articulate Hudson's UTPA claim outside the context of Citibank's Rule 82 attorney's fees claim.13

Although a challenge to the basis or amount of a Rule 82 attorney's fees claim can never be unanticipated in Alaska practice, we can perhaps assume that Citibank did not anticipate a challenge based specifically on the UTPA.14 But I caution against deferring too much to the defenses a litigant anticipated when we are deciding whether its claim is closely related to the other party's response. The court today observes that "Citibank's decision to litigate its simple debt-collection action does not convey that it also intended to forgo arbitration on a different, more complex UTPA claim."15 I doubt that the plaintiff in a consumer debt-collection case will ever be found to have subjectively anticipated a complex defense to its claim, no matter what that defense might be and how "closely related" it appears to an objective eye. Sometimes, as in these cases of consumer default, the plaintiff likely expects no defense at all. But I suggest that whether the plaintiff anticipated the defense to its claim should not have the significance the court gives it; much more important is whether the plaintiff intended to litigate its claim. By filing its claim in court the plaintiff invites a response in the same forum.16 Citibank's claim for Rule 82 attorney's fees was plainly inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate either its right to those fees or the reasonableness of those fees.

Nor do I believe that the closely related claim and response lost their relatedness because Hudson chose to file her action on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class consists of persons like Hudson "against whom defendants obtained a default judgment including attorney's fees since July 15, 2009." Had the collections cases been defended, Citibank could reasonably have expected a challenge to the amount of fees from each of these class member-defendants; it waived its right to arbitrate the Rule 82 claim in each individual case and as to each potential class member. That Hudson seeks to consolidate the cases for decision adds procedural efficiencies this court has long encouraged;17 it does not dilute the claims' relatedness. In other words, the fact that all the class members' claims are closely related to the attorney's fees claims on which they hinge cannot mean that none of them are. And the fact that Citibank waived arbitration as to each one of them individually cannot mean that it reserved arbitration as to all of them as a class.

B. The Language Of The Arbitration Agreement Does Not Restrain The Court's Application Of Waiver Principles.

The court today relies heavily on the language of the parties' Arbitration Agreement to conclude that Citibank retained the right "to seek arbitration on claims distinct from its original debt collection action and its request for attorney's fees" regardless of waiver principles that would otherwise apply.18 But parties cannot contract away the courts' exercise of the inherent authority to find that the right to arbitrate has been waived by the pursuit of a judicial remedy.

Federal courts are appropriately skeptical of "no waiver" clauses in arbitration agreements. "[T]he presence of [a] `no waiver' clause does not alter the ordinary analysis undertaken to determine if a party has waived its right to arbitration."19 "This makes sense because `to allow the "no waiver" clause to preclude a finding of waiver would permit parties to waste scarce judicial time and effort and hamper judges' authority to control the course of the proceedings' and allow parties to `test[] the water before taking the swim' by delaying assertion of their right to arbitration until the litigation is nearly complete."20

Citibank chose to file its debt-collection action in Alaska's courts, where Civil Rule 82 and the efficient default-judgment process allowed it to increase Hudson's consumer debt by what it claimed to be thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. It opted against arbitration, where its right to Rule 82 fees would be at best problematic.21 When challenged in Hudson's instant suit, Citibank demanded that the attorney's fees issue it had already litigated to an easy judgment in Alaska's courts be arbitrated instead. But under the "closely related" test of waiver as the court explains it today, I would hold that Citibank is not entitled to relitigate the issue in a new forum under a new set of rules; the parties' contract has no effect on this conclusion. I therefore dissent.