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

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

#221

Post by HillaryBriss » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #3

tl;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.

> The article's author says Gmail filed it into the 'Promotions' folder.

Yeah, but they have to contact people by email because they don't have anyone's physical home address.

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

#222

Post by the_watcher » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #212

the_watcher wrote: post #203

Something I've wondered always wondered when reading through class actions: do multiple class actions suits over the same set of facts ever happen? Are they possible? It seems technically possible: Class action settlement reached, somehow a huge portion of the impacted class opts out of the settlement (extremely unlikely, but possible). Opted out class members somehow organize a subsequent action. Is the above possib…

I am not a lawyer, but to me if you signed up for class action, and you agreed that the $125 check supposed to be the payment for your damages and the other party backed off and did not provide it that means the agreement shouldn't be valid.

Disclaimer: IANAL (but did go to law school and vaguely paid attention to this part so lawyers, please correct my recollections where wrong)

My recollection is that, usually, only a small number of people actively sign up to the class during the lawsuit & settlement negotiation phase, and the named class is guaranteed a substantially higher payout. The settlement is worded as up to $X for the rest of the class, who can choose to accept the fact that the amount is not a guarantee or decline and keep their ability to bring a subsequent action (hence my original question of "Can you bring subsequent class action suits comprised of different subsets of the same impacted class?").

So basically, the people who actively signed up are getting a guarantee of an amount they negotiated, the rest of us are stuck deciding how valuable "up to" $125 actually is.

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

#223

Post by pimmen » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:29 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…

> Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class.

That’s not the victims’ problem. Even if Equifax has to be completely liquidated to cover the compensation, the government should fight to make an example of such a terrible company and give the victims some sense of justice. Hopefully the board and the executives would rethink their lives and careers, maybe even change.

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

#224

Post by pmiller2 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

pimmen wrote: post #206

socalnate1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Hacker news so obsessed with sending people to jail? Literally every time any sort of corporation get's fined (for nearly anything), there is a loud call to send people to prison. It's like there is this undercurrent of bloodthirstiness and hatred for large companies and their leaders that get's brought to the surface.

Maybe not jail time but I would really want the board to be personally responsible for what they did. Or, if they can argue that they made sure their corporation had a good security culture, the executives who broke the company regulations need to be personally responsible. Seriously, someone needs to be rehabilitated from this before they can be sent back into society. After someone gets out of jail from grand theft…

Re: “owners”

You know the “owners” of Equifax are its shareholders, right? You’d end up sending a bunch of index fund managers to jail, among others.

I think you mean “officers and board members,” the people who can make day to day decisions for the company. If so, I support it. Lock! Them! Up!

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

#225

Post by scarejunba » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

pimmen wrote: post #223

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…

> Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class. That’s not the victims’ problem. Even if Equifax has to be completely liquidated to cover the compensation, the government should fight to make an example of such a terrible company and give the victims some sense of justice. Hopefully the board and the executives would rethink their lives and careers, maybe even change.

It becomes the victims' problem when Equifax declares bankruptcy and escapes paying.

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

#226

Post by dheera » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #13

dheera wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried this when signing up for a Chase credit card and they said that it was their policy to use Equifax. (I had a credit freeze in place with Equifax at the time.)

You have to be willing to walk away if they say no, works best if the company cares about losing the deal - credit card signups might not be lucrative enough for a human to get involved and care.

Yeah, if I was a millionaire, I'd walk away.

I wanted the sign-up bonus. $800 of free money was too much to pass up in my financial situation.

This is the kind of situation where I think some regulation would help, e.g. federal law should allow me to decide which of the credit agencies they use.

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

#227

Post by jogjayr » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

ipython wrote: post #145

phyzome wrote: post #99

Are we "consumers" now, rather than "victims" or "citizens"? Are we defined by what we buy?

Thank you... words matter... "unwitting victims" would be more like it. Or perhaps "American citizens". As your rhetorical question points out, we are not defined by what we buy. I did not directly provide my personally identifying information to Equifax, yet they held (and continue to hold) it and disclosed it en masse through their organization's technical incompetence. I did not "consume" anything from Equifax, an…

> "unwitting victims" would be more like it. Or perhaps "American citizens".

Non-citizens residing in the US were also affected. As were previous US residents who got a credit card or home loan or bank account while here.

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

#228

Post by argd678 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

socalnate1 wrote: post #196

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.

Why is Hacker news so obsessed with sending people to jail? Literally every time any sort of corporation get's fined (for nearly anything), there is a loud call to send people to prison. It's like there is this undercurrent of bloodthirstiness and hatred for large companies and their leaders that get's brought to the surface.

If you read the post, the question is how to change the behavior, and in the US would be white collar criminals are dissuaded by jail. We could give them a social score too, that seems to work in China.

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

#229

Post by rpmisms » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

argd678 wrote: post #228

socalnate1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Hacker news so obsessed with sending people to jail? Literally every time any sort of corporation get's fined (for nearly anything), there is a loud call to send people to prison. It's like there is this undercurrent of bloodthirstiness and hatred for large companies and their leaders that get's brought to the surface.

If you read the post, the question is how to change the behavior, and in the US would be white collar criminals are dissuaded by jail. We could give them a social score too, that seems to work in China.

I can't tell if you're being serious, but for the love of freedom I hope you're not.

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

#230

Post by prophesi » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #192

ceejayoz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which is not what the parent comment was going for. It said, "I'd like to see the courts force Equifax [...]".

Now it's just semantics. Denying the current settlement would inevitably result in a larger settlement, unless everyone appealing to the courts is saying that the $125 repayment is too much.