91–100 of 171 posts
$725M is about two days of revenue. Ouch, that stings! I hope they're ok and can survive to improve. /s Seriously though, where's the punitive aspect of the system here? https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Domains that you block, if you don't want to connect to them: facebookuserprivacysettlement.com www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com adsrvr.org js.adsrvr.org digitaldisbursements.com content.digitaldisbursements.com fonts.googleapis.com google.com zdassets.com static.zdassets.com No, seriously, if you don't want to connect to these sites, block them.
Ill get the average facebook user (60+ y/o boomer) right on to identifying domain links and how to block them.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's even worse when you look at their privacy policy. Who signed off on this? https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/Privacy_Policy....
I never believe privacy policies anyway. I go on the assumption that anything I ever reveal on the internet will become public knowledge at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very true but sometimes it’s worth it. I got over $3K from the price-fixing eye contact settlement. Normally signing up for these things takes less than 10min and sometimes you hit big. Though in this case I’m not expecting much.
I got over $2000 from the class action against banks for sneaky foreign transaction fees. It did, however, require a lot of documentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've also been advertising it pretty extensively for quite a while. I signed up close to a year ago I think. At the end of the day they aren't required to cover every edge case or possible contingency. Like the other person said, its a compromise. If everyone had to file individually, most would never get justice. The settlement gets evaluated for reasonableness by the court for exactly this issue. Not everyone is…
As much as I like being an "edge case", "contingency", "fraction", etc., I can't agree. Do you have a good reason to believe that we can consider negligible the proportion of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are not aware of its existence and their rights and responsibilities? Can you show that it's probable that they're not in the majority? The problem may be thorny, but you haven't ma…
It's not really the set of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are unaware of it that is relevant here. The relevant set is the subset of that group that would choose not to be in this settlement and also would individually sue Facebook over the legal issues and factual allegations involved in the class action.
I would expect that most people who are sufficiently concerned over the Facebook activities involved in this class action to actually individually sue would have already done so or at least started preparing to do so long ago and as part of that would have kept track of other lawsuits that overlapped with theirs.
Seems like a bunch of free money if you're in the US. Sadly, Im not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t need to be a resident to be protected by US laws. Obviously they’re talking about location and not nationality or residence.
If you select "NO" in any of those questions you get an alert "You are not eligible" so you need to be a citizen and in the US in that time
(I am not a lawyer, take this with a grain of salt.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I like being an "edge case", "contingency", "fraction", etc., I can't agree. Do you have a good reason to believe that we can consider negligible the proportion of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are not aware of its existence and their rights and responsibilities? Can you show that it's probable that they're not in the majority? The problem may be thorny, but you haven't ma…
The rest of your comment is a perfectly valid way of looking at things, so I'm not going to contest it. I think my comment stands and you have a different take, which is totally fine. We don't have to agree. But I did note this section: >Fwiw, class actions of this type have been popular mostly in one country and only since the sixties. I presume you're speaking of the US, but just a month ago (went into effect June…