relief. We vacate the court’s decision: on remand the issue of the availability and scope of injunc-tive 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. 1 . In both cases Citibank (South Dakota) NA issued the cards, but in Stewart's case Midland Funding LLC purchased the account from Citibank. 2 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 82(b)(1), (b)(4). 3 . For convenience, the parties will be referred to collectively as “Citibank'1 and "Hudson.” 4 . Compare Airoulofski v. State, 922 P.2d 889, 894 n.5 (Alaska 1996) (<HOLDING>), with Blood v. Kenneth Murray Ins. Co., 68
holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo holding that waiver should be reviewed de novo when decided without trial on undisputed facts