I chose the cash option because I have credit monitoring through 2025 from the OPM breach of my SF-86 (security clearance application information) years ago. This is so idiotic. The FTC did consumers no favors in negotiating such an absolutely pitiful settlement.
Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
141–150 of 286 posts
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how this works. Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. So if lenders look at Equifax (and they do) then that's the exact same data. You might wonder, "But if their product is free and they spend money buying the data for it, how can that make financial sense?" and that's the thing most consumers don't understand. What's better than selling advertising? Selling actual _customers_. N…
> Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. Well, sorta. Credit Karma uses VantageScore 3.0 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VantageScore ), which is different from the various FICO offerings, sometimes substantially. VantageScore has four different generations. FICO has over sixty variants - by credit bureau, relevant industry (there is, for example, a mortgage-specific calculation), and generat…
I can't speak directly to the US experience because it's different. However I did work for the biggest UK credit reference agency (one of Equifax's rivals) not so very long ago.
In the UK there is no "FICO score" but consumers anyway believe a single three digit number "ought" to summarise their credit history and so the Credit Reference Agencies just make one up. I actually sat in on meetings when the rating were being changed where they argued about on the one hand a factor isn't relevant to most lenders any more, on the other hand consumers really _expect_ it to matter and are disappointed when it doesn't affect their score...
The intended consumers of credit data here all have proprietary algorithms to target audiences (rather than any of them relying on a simplistic "score") with a binary outcome, indeed your credit might be "too good" for some offerings. A card with 0% for 12 months is not aimed at people who'll use the card for 12 months then pay off the entire balance without flinching and walk away.
Definitely some of the offerings in the UK are approved based on knowing your _actual_ results in the proprietary algorithm because the card company is giving that algorithm (under legal agreement not to disclose it) to be used to ensure they only get given customers they'd accept. They're not "estimating" whether you'd be accepted. They don't want to waste their time on non-targets any more than the consumer wants to waste time applying for a card they won't get.
There will be some rate of non-acceptance for other reasons, but "not credit worthy" shouldn't be on the list, that's sort of the whole rationale for this business.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how this works. Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. So if lenders look at Equifax (and they do) then that's the exact same data. You might wonder, "But if their product is free and they spend money buying the data for it, how can that make financial sense?" and that's the thing most consumers don't understand. What's better than selling advertising? Selling actual _customers_. N…
> Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. Well, sorta. Credit Karma uses VantageScore 3.0 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VantageScore ), which is different from the various FICO offerings, sometimes substantially. VantageScore has four different generations. FICO has over sixty variants - by credit bureau, relevant industry (there is, for example, a mortgage-specific calculation), and generat…
>'VantageScore has four different generations.'
What is a "generation" here?
I would be curious to hear if people view Kredit Karma as trustworthy. I think I didn't understand their business model prior to reading this. Thanks
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#144tl;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.
I received no such email and I signed up fairly quickly for the $125. I've checked my spam folder as well as everywhere else, they simply haven't sent me such an email.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#145Are 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, and yet, that is the default word that every newspaper writer reaches for whenever they need to refer to a class of people affected by any economic activity.
"Consumer" implies passivity, and in my opinion, leads to a mass culture of learned helplessness and anxiety/depression by implying our only value is our position on the hedonic treadmill. Hyperbolic? Perhaps, but why not choose a different word?
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#146Don'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…
To be clear, can anyone assumedly become a "Settlement Class Member" simply by being an American citizen or having an SSN ( and thus being affected by the breach? ) edit: Thanks for replies; the answer is "no". You can check if you were affected on the settlement homepage under "I would like to..." I was not affected by the breach, so a letter from me would not matter.
I think not quite everyone was affected, it was supposedly 147M people. You can check if your information was included in the breach on the settlement site.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#147It 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 also tried to freeze my credit and their website required me to put something in the mail. I did, including sending copies of various documents, and never got any response. I have the same issue with one of the credit reporting bureaus. They refuse to give me my legally required free credit report despite multiple attempts and mailings.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#148Don'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…
Has anyone publicly done the work to cite law/precedent to object to the fairness here? Certainly I can provide my own personal reasons, but citing law and previous settlements would bolster the case (and this specifically asks for it too)
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. Well, sorta. Credit Karma uses VantageScore 3.0 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VantageScore ), which is different from the various FICO offerings, sometimes substantially. VantageScore has four different generations. FICO has over sixty variants - by credit bureau, relevant industry (there is, for example, a mortgage-specific calculation), and generat…
>'VantageScore has four different generations.' What is a "generation" here? I would be curious to hear if people view Kredit Karma as trustworthy. I think I didn't understand their business model prior to reading this. Thanks
A generation is an algorithm change. For example, in VantageScore 3.0 (used by Credit Karma), your utilization percentage doesn't have a "memory" - your score reflects only your current utilization level. In 4.0, utilization has a memory - if you've been running maxed-out cards for a year, and you pay it all off right before applying for more credit, your score doesn't improve as much as in 3.0.
There's a pretty good comparison at https://www.creditkarma.com/credit-cards/i/vantagescore-30/ between VS 3, VS 4, FICO 8, and FICO 9.
> I would be curious to hear if people view Kredit Karma as trustworthy.
I strongly suspect their card/loan recommendations (where they make the bulk of their revenue) are intended to steer users into the ones that earn them the most commission. You'd want to go into it with eyes wide open and do a lot of independent research.
Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear this is the motto of hacker news. "Everything sucks and you're wasting your time trying to change it" - HN
Not just hacker news, it's pervasive in any community where people who value intelligence meet. It's because cynicism is a lazy shortcut to a 'smart opinion'. How do we sound smart with zero effort? Well we don't want to be gullible (everything is good and fair!) so we do the opposite (everything is corrupt and bad!). I really wish it were more than that.
I think you have hit on an actual insight here, but it's worth noting that it's of an extremely similarly cynical and broad-brush character to what you're talking about. :)