In a 1992 lawsuit (Badie v BofA) it was ruled that just because BofA sent a bill stuffer to their cardholders informing them of a new binding arbitration clause, that did not mean that cardholders relinquished their rights to a jury trial.
While the cardholders felt the practice was unfair and the court ruled in the cardholders favor, BofA felt that they did have the right to change the agreement as long as the procedure set out in the original contract was followed. In fact, now, almost seven years later, lawyers for BofA, Visa, and MasterCard have asked that the California Supreme Court wipe the case off the books or re-review it.
Upon hearing of the card companiesí efforts, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ), a non-profit group (this is not to be confused with the TLPP- Trial Lawyers for Personal Profit group), is getting involved. They have initiated the Mandatory Arbitration Abuse Project, and are asking the courtís opinion striking down the validity of mandatory arbitration agreements.
"Banks should not be permitted to misuse mandatory arbitration clauses to deny unsuspecting Americans of their fundamental rights," said TLPJ foundation President Joseph Power. "That is what Bank of America tried to do in the Badie case and thatís why the banking community wants the case wiped off the books."
If the decision does get erased, it may change the way card companies notify cardholders of contract changes.
