Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

yahoodatabreachsettlement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#11

Post by ceejayoz »

koolba wrote: post #5
iflywithbook wrote: post #2

"Under the terms of the Settlement, Yahoo has enhanced, or, through its successor in interest, Oath Holdings Inc. (“Oath”), continues to enhance its business practices that will improve the security of its users’ personal information stored on its databases. Defendants will also pay for a Settlement Fund of $117,500,000. The Settlement Fund will provide a minimum of two years of Credit Monitoring Services to protect…

Why do judges agree to forcing consumers to have useless product of credit monitoring in place to receive a cash payout? Can I set up a “virtual” credit monitoring that provides that type of service in name only to cover that requirement? Imagine paying $5 to claim you have credit monitoring for settlement purposes.

> Can I set up a “virtual” credit monitoring that provides that type of service in name only to cover that requirement?

Absolutely. https://creditkarma.com/ is free, and counts.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#12

Post by ceejayoz »

ryanlol wrote: post #10
u801e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.

>then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender en…

> For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded.

For the hours of phone calls over several weeks/months/years it takes to clear it all up?

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#13

Post by magashna »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8
koolba wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do judges agree to forcing consumers to have useless product of credit monitoring in place to receive a cash payout? Can I set up a “virtual” credit monitoring that provides that type of service in name only to cover that requirement? Imagine paying $5 to claim you have credit monitoring for settlement purposes.

I mean, you should have one from one of the many previous breaches. Also, arguably your credit card or mortgage company may be providing you enough monitoring to claim you have it. For those who suffered under TurboTax, Intuit offers a free credit monitoring service as well. Credit monitoring, like antivirus, is something you should have, but should not be paying for.

I would rather be less involved with these credit companies. I recently spent about a month getting some BS off my Experian account. Whenever you're on hold you need to sit through around 10 minutes of commercials for their data protection services.

Experian.

The company responsible for possibly the biggest data leak in history. Advertising data protection services.

The balls of some companies

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#14

Post by ceejayoz »

How long before an identity thief pays PR Newswire to run a story on data breach settlement and harvest all the PII requested on these sorts of settlement claim forms?

yahoodatabreachsettlement.com just looks scammy as hell. It's a pity there's not a .gov domain set up for this sort of thing - when there's a settlement, a court order gets issued for yahoo.settlements.gov to get set up.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#15

Post by bradleyjg »

koolba wrote: post #5
iflywithbook wrote: post #2

"Under the terms of the Settlement, Yahoo has enhanced, or, through its successor in interest, Oath Holdings Inc. (“Oath”), continues to enhance its business practices that will improve the security of its users’ personal information stored on its databases. Defendants will also pay for a Settlement Fund of $117,500,000. The Settlement Fund will provide a minimum of two years of Credit Monitoring Services to protect…

Why do judges agree to forcing consumers to have useless product of credit monitoring in place to receive a cash payout? Can I set up a “virtual” credit monitoring that provides that type of service in name only to cover that requirement? Imagine paying $5 to claim you have credit monitoring for settlement purposes.

The appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have applied doctrines favoring settlements—-which make sense in a normal lawsuit—-in the context of class actions, where they exacerbate the already severe conflict of interest between counsel and the class.

The one thing most District Court judges like least is being overruled on appeal.

But the real blame falls on Congress. They ought to adopt a real regulatory apparatus and put away the class action (vice mass action).

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#16

Post by magashna »

ryanlol wrote: post #10
u801e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.

>then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender en…

I had trouble getting an apartment because of credit fraud. Was I not a victim in the situation? I had to spend hours on the phone over months getting my credit report cleared. I guess I'm being entitled and poor ole Bank of America was the real victim here.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#17

Post by basch »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8
koolba wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do judges agree to forcing consumers to have useless product of credit monitoring in place to receive a cash payout? Can I set up a “virtual” credit monitoring that provides that type of service in name only to cover that requirement? Imagine paying $5 to claim you have credit monitoring for settlement purposes.

I mean, you should have one from one of the many previous breaches. Also, arguably your credit card or mortgage company may be providing you enough monitoring to claim you have it. For those who suffered under TurboTax, Intuit offers a free credit monitoring service as well. Credit monitoring, like antivirus, is something you should have, but should not be paying for.

If i make a credit inquiry I immediately get a notification from mint, credit karma, chase, my credit union. Im sure, if you use multiple banks, that you can find a place to turn on credit monitoring for free.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#18

Post by rapind »

ryanlol wrote: post #10
u801e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.

>then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender en…

I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the system has been so perverted that it's the consumer who inevitably suffers.

Here's a pretty entertaining peek (by Micheal Lewis) into what happens because of fraud that the consumer had literally nothing to do with and how the lender (bank) is able to put the onus on him to fix. It's not life or death, at least in this example, but it really shows how obviously unfair the system is. Apparently this happens quite a bit.

https://atrpodcast.com/episodes/the-seven-minute-rule-s1!1c9...

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#19

Post by utopian3 »

ryanlol wrote: post #10
u801e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.

>then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender en…

The consumer is also the victim because their credit score is impacted by the fraud, which can prevent them from securing a loan (for car, home, apartment, school, etc)

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#20

Post by jakewalker »

theshadowknows wrote: post #7
ryanlol wrote: post #3

Credit monitoring is snake oil. These settlements are universally bullshit and mostly benefit snake oil vendors and not consumers. Also FWIW the damage figures are also nonsense, how much can the equifax leak hurt anyone if their data was already for sale on ssndob? Almost all Americans have had their information compromised in hacks they’ve never heard of. Am I wrong?

Class actions are interesting. Basically the lawyer for the class has a dollar value he or she wants before they even send their letter to the company being sued. Then they work towards that. Once they reach that number they don’t really care how the class is reimbursed. And neither do the judges.

Plaintiffs' class action (mostly securities) lawyer here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Post reply on HN