Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims

Post by hinkley » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

g051051 wrote: post #181

munk-a wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware this is legally the case, but I think this is yet another sign that default opt-in isn't a legitimate agreement, society has become pretty litigious and I think some of the understanding around default opt-ins during enrollment for other services and third party data sales need to be revisited. I find them to be highly unethical and to generally result in a contract negotiated without compensation and any c…

This is not "default opt-in", like having the "Subscribe to our email newsletter" checked on an online order form. The sharing of credit worthiness information is the cornerstone of your ability to get credit. It's not a hidden extra, it's not something you can choose not to get, there's no "opt out". It's a condition of doing business with the credit grantor. It's like opting out of having a driver's license. If you…

Post by hinkley » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

bootlooped wrote: post #58

greedo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, most of us did opt in. If you look at the credit agreements we sign when we buy cars, open credit accounts, enter into a mortgage, we give the lender the privilege to share our data with these credit reporting companies.

I read or heard a phrase for this recently and it's "consent theater".

Post by minton » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 3:37 AM UTC

salawat wrote: post #260

adrr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could build a better algorithm to do underwriting, you could make billions. Companies try all the time like zest finance.

Why? Why feed into it? This is the mentality that kills me. Why double down and try to make something that is already being gamed? The very definition of insanity is doing The same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. There is no right to operate a business that exposes everyone to risk they have no choice in whether to accept or not. Centralizing excessive amounts of data with obtuse and dubio…

Post by tbyehl » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 3:42 AM UTC

b_tterc_p wrote: post #135

harryh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you want to borrow money, the person loaning you money is generally going to insist that you opt into the system that helps them understand if you are a good credit risk or not. That's not an unfair request on their part. Don't want to participate? Then don't ask for a loan.

Just be rich!

Post by pmiller2 » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

g051051 wrote: post #227

amluto wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sharing of credit worthiness information is the cornerstone of your ability to get credit. It's not a hidden extra, it's not something you can choose not to get, there's no "opt out". It's a condition of doing business with the credit grantor. No, this is only true because the law does not meaningfully restrict abusive contracts. Sure, a credit card issuer should [0] be able to ask some agency for information o…

> It does not follow at all that the issuer should have permission to give information back to the agency. The agreements you sign when requesting and getting credit explicitly grant that right.