Originally Posted by
OssianBlue
It also goes to the issue of AA's bad faith dealing as a data point in a small claims action.
Allowing employees to use an alias to protect their privacy does not seem (to me) to be persuasive evidence of bad faith. AA's lawyers would know the precedents and regulations, but I do not. In any event it was
established before Christmas that the AAdvantage terms explicitly disclaim any duty to deal in good faith. Showing a small claims magistrate that they are, indeed, following their own terms doesn't seem (to me) that it would be important in determining if a consumer is entitled to compensation.