William Aldinger's Unfair Binding Arbitration Challenged

Why is this important? Because William F. Aldinger is on the board of directors at AT&T, and was also CEO of Household International, and Chairman and CEO of HSBC USA. HSBC has the same mandatory binding arbitration, and William F. Aldinger has his law degree and thus would advise AT&T in some capacity. Here is the article:

Ting v. AT&T (U.S. Supreme Court)

California long distance phone customers won the right to challenge phone giant AT&T in court instead of being forced into an unfair, one-sided arbitration system, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the corporation’s appeal. On October 6, 2003, the Supreme Court let stand TLPJ’s major victory for consumers against AT&T, declining to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held that provisions in AT&T’s standard form contract requiring long distance customers to submit their claims to mandatory arbitration are unconscionable and unenforceable. The denial of certiorari in Ting v. AT&T finalizes a significant legal victory for seven million California long distance customers of AT&T who filed a class action lawsuit challenging the corporation’s new mandatory arbitration provision. On February 11, 2003, the Court of Appeals struck down provisions in AT&T’s arbitration clause that (a) stripped consumers of the right to file or participate in a class action; (b) stripped consumers of various rights and shielded AT&T from damages for willful misconduct under California’s consumer protection laws; (c) required consumers to pay expensive fees for arbitration; and (d) contained a gag rule requiring consumers to keep secret any dispute they might have against AT&T.

Press Release:

Opinion (PDF):