I have credit monitoring but signed up for it from this settlement anyway. I doubt anyone will see anymore than a couple of bucks from this. It's a scam and they got away with it. That's what happens when your government cares more about corporate profits than people. None of the things here will do anything to change that short of pursuing your own case against them which will definitely cost more than $125, not to mention time and effort. The bad guys just won. As usual.
Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
21–30 of 286 posts
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#22In an ideal world, a white-hat would write a script that uses all of the hacked data to apply for the settlement on behalf of the hacked users so that the affected users don't have to individually work out how to hack Equifax's claims process.
You're missing the point. There is no hack. You can claim, but in order to claim you need to provide evidence you have credit monitoring. So in order to get 31 cents from equifax you need to prove that you're using an expensive useless service that is either provided by equifax or one of their equally useless competitors.
The hacking was done in court.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... On the other hand, this settlement shouldn't have been capped at such a ridiculously low amount.
> Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... No, it's not. If you collect personal information of almost 150 million people, you have to take measures to protect that data. If you fail to do that, you can't just say "oops, I didn't mean that"...
Apparently you can totally just say whoopsie. A bit backslash here, some penalties over there and it's fine, the sun comes up next day morning the same.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#24Is Equifax actually liable or responsible for anything? No jail time or other penalties for executives. Okay so how are they held accountable?
Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... On the other hand, this settlement shouldn't have been capped at such a ridiculously low amount.
That's just what they want you to think. Really they just sold the data off on the international market.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this actually work? Do bank employees have any control of the credit check process?
My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
Sounds pretty suspicious. Like you have a really bad credit score on Equifax compared to the other two
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
Sounds pretty suspicious. Like you have a really bad credit score on Equifax compared to the other two
I guess Equifax has a low enough rep that it is less suspicious than for any other
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
Sounds pretty suspicious. Like you have a really bad credit score on Equifax compared to the other two
In which case the Equifax score would have been dropped anyway. So the lender isn't in any worse position.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#28tl;dr: For those who applied for the $125 payout option in the Equifax data breach settlement, you should've gotten an email requiring that you provide more information by October 15, or that your claim would be denied. The FTC confirms it's legit: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/eq... (FAQ 4 item 2) The article's author says Gmail filed it into the 'Promotions' folder.
FWIW the Equifax email didn't go to Promotions for me, it was in the regular Gmail inbox, and marked "Important".
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.
Sounds pretty suspicious. Like you have a really bad credit score on Equifax compared to the other two
lol “suspicious”, as if it matters
you realize you can say the wildest most unsophisticated things and they’ll just punch the numbers into a machine and get a “lend to this guy or not” result either way right?
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#30Is Equifax actually liable or responsible for anything? No jail time or other penalties for executives. Okay so how are they held accountable?
Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... On the other hand, this settlement shouldn't have been capped at such a ridiculously low amount.
They made the conscious decision to monetize personal data belonging to more than a hundred million people. That means they should take every measure available to make sure something that sensitive is not released.
If this was the US Airforce who lost an armed nuclear ICBM the commanding officer who was ok with this ”whoopsie” would have to explain him or herself to quite a few officials.