Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125 • Hacker News Board

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#181

Post by mehrdadn » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

ScoJoh wrote: post #131

Don't know if anyone posted this before, but if you scroll down to #25 here: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq You can send a letter to the Courts and let them know why you do or don't think this is a sufficient and decent settlement. Share it, let's get people writing in, because this lets Equifax keep really everything and in the end little real effect from their failure to take care of the information th…

I mentioned this myself earlier, but later I noticed 2 huge caveats I hadn't noticed before:

1. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object

2. Your objection letter must include: A statement as to whether you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing

This means you cannot opt out and also object, and you also need to spend $$$ either traveling to the court or finding a lawyer to appear for you.

Not sure how many people are willing to do that.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#182

Post by mehrdadn » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

thedanbob wrote: post #163

camhenlin wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting this. My wife and I already have credit monitoring so we’ve been very frustrated that it seems like Equifax will be weaseling out of paying us our $125 each. We’ll be sending a couple of letters today. Personally I’d like to see the courts rethink the settlement and force the $125 payout to everyone who requested it.

I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. But this settlement doesn't seem to be about actually punishing Equifax at all or fairly recompensing those affected.

> I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that's an option:

"You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as it is."

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#183

Post by cwkoss » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #68

cwkoss wrote: post #6

If anyone is getting a mortgage or refinancing soon, ask your lender to 'drop' equifax without running your score with them - just take the score from the other two. Equifax is an unnecessary security and privacy risk. They are a horrible company that needs to go out of business. Make their customers feel embarrassed to be doing business with them.

My lender wanted Equifax and Transunion only. I had no choice but to unfreeze it.

That's when you give them a 5 minute rant about how Equifax is bad for society and they should feel bad for supporting their business, then look for another lender.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#184

Post by DATACOMMANDER » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

argd678 wrote: post #104

It seems like companies only get the message when there’s jail time involved. None of the companies would freeze my credit since their web sites said some unspecified value couldn’t be verified for me, despite confirming my data was indeed lost. Pretty sure, like other regulations that include jail time, this wouldn’t have happened or their website to freeze my credit would have worked.

I disagree, but I want to be clear that I disagree on practical, not ideological, grounds. As others have pointed out, handing out prison sentences for security breaches would be counterproductive. If we make it financially ruinous, companies are more likely to change their behavior in the way we want then to.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#185

Post by projektfu » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class. It's way above their revenue, let alone profit. So they would go bankrupt and whatever cash is on hand would be divvied up. The credit information would presumably be sold to the highest bidder.

How about the FTC instead agrees that identities cannot be stolen and puts companies on the hook for the money they lose by not verifying identity. You have an account with a bank and they give the money to a fraudster? Well, then they have to credit your account and go looking for the money. Someone opens a loan in your name? The company has to pay you for the time spent removing their garbage from the credit report and they have to go get the money back from the fraudster. Why not just remove the bite from identity theft?

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#186

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #185

Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class. It's way above their revenue, let alone profit. So they would go bankrupt and whatever cash is on hand would be divvied up. The credit information would presumably be sold to the highest bidder. How about the FTC instead agrees that identities cannot be stolen and puts companies on the hook for the money they lose by not verifying identity. You…

> How about the FTC instead agrees that identities cannot be stolen

Well, sure, if identities cannot be stolen, the whole problem is solved.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#187

Post by cwkoss » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

DATACOMMANDER wrote: post #184

argd678 wrote: post #104

It seems like companies only get the message when there’s jail time involved. None of the companies would freeze my credit since their web sites said some unspecified value couldn’t be verified for me, despite confirming my data was indeed lost. Pretty sure, like other regulations that include jail time, this wouldn’t have happened or their website to freeze my credit would have worked.

I disagree, but I want to be clear that I disagree on practical, not ideological, grounds. As others have pointed out, handing out prison sentences for security breaches would be counterproductive. If we make it financially ruinous, companies are more likely to change their behavior in the way we want then to.

I think a CISO or CEO going to jail would send a strong message to the rest of the business community.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#188

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #182

thedanbob wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. But this settlement doesn't seem to be about actually punishing Equifax at all or fairly recompensing those affected.

> I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's an option: "You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as it is."

Denying the settlement leaves open the possibility of a larger one. The court just can't order the subsequent negotiation have a specific result.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#189

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #187

DATACOMMANDER wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, but I want to be clear that I disagree on practical, not ideological, grounds. As others have pointed out, handing out prison sentences for security breaches would be counterproductive. If we make it financially ruinous, companies are more likely to change their behavior in the way we want then to.

I think a CISO or CEO going to jail would send a strong message to the rest of the business community.

That message would be "silently cover up any data breaches and hope they don't get discovered", wouldn't it?

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#190

Post by allannienhuis » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #185

Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class. It's way above their revenue, let alone profit. So they would go bankrupt and whatever cash is on hand would be divvied up. The credit information would presumably be sold to the highest bidder. How about the FTC instead agrees that identities cannot be stolen and puts companies on the hook for the money they lose by not verifying identity. You…

Their ability to pay would be limited by their assets, not revenue or profit. If they've been making profit for years, they might easily have enough cash. Also, their future profits can be borrowed against to pay for a one-time expense like this.

I have no idea whether they have the cash or not, I'm just pointing out that looking at their current revenue and income is not enough. :)