301–310 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time we're leaking our DNA all over the place by existing
So you would be ok if governments around the world have sample of yours and store it in a database?
Automatically opting-in customers to a more restrictive TOS is pretty suspect, especially given the timing. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that a court would not allow that, given that the TOS was changed AFTER the breach and it's pretty clear that the company is trying to avoid legal issues after-the-fact. I would expect the court would evaluate any breach under the TOS that was in effect at the time of the breach, rath…
They ought to be evaluated as if no TOS exists. Given the clear intent to defraud customers by misrepresenting the contract they were bound by, the claims should be evaluated under the TOS most favorable to the plaintiffs. The most favorable TOS is the one that's invalid because 23andMe didn't get anyone to actually agree, ergo the claims are evaluated as if no TOS exists. This is an attempt to undermine consumer pro…
I’m even more curious if the change of ToS alone could be grounds for a trial, even a class action—making the risk not even worth the try.
Even harder to swallow: discover that the lawyers using the class action got hold of the data from the leak and used that in their marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying or arbitrating a large number of cases individually is far more expensive than litigating a class action suit. But only if the people pushing the arbitration hold firm, rather than agreeing to the initial settlement offering.
I once looked into arbitration against a local company based on their ToS. Initiating arbitration would have cost me several hundred dollars, not to mention time, which was more than my dispute was worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once looked into arbitration against a local company based on their ToS. Initiating arbitration would have cost me several hundred dollars, not to mention time, which was more than my dispute was worth.
And how much would it have cost you to file a lawsuit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a security engineer. When I signed up for 23andme, I assumed with certainty that it would be hacked and all data leaked at some point. I balanced that with the value of knowing potentially important health/genetic bio markers. In the end, I valued knowing these bio markers above the privacy of my genome. The former is actionable and I can use it to optimize my health and longevity; the latter is of vague value a…
> I can use it to optimize my health and longevity Q: Is it a HN thing to be (obsessively?) interested in health and longevity? Dying is a natural process. Sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that in the US individuals have to band together and privately launch a class action to stop these types of parasitic behaviours. The government is supposed to represent the interests of citizens.
That's exactly why - we have a largely dysfunctional federal government (and most state governments aren't much better). The biggest downside is the lawyers take a massive chunk of any award and the actual victims are often left with very little. Or, even worse, the victims get worthless coupons (like with many credit/PII breaches - the award will be 1-year of credit monitoring from the company that allowed the breac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real issue is that lawyer can “try” anything with almost no consequences. I doubt this will work. But there’s “no harm in trying.”
Over here there are "consumer associations" that have the right to sue in such cases in the name of all consumers. That works quite well. Due to this traditionally those things are not even tried. That has changed with (mostly US) businesses entering the EU. A good example is booking.com, who again and again and again invented new dark patterns to then get sued for it, making it clear those are illegal. We had the sa…
The problem is most lawsuits end in plea deals, so it matters greatly who the specific litigants are, as they have to ability to agree to a compromise that affects everybody.
That’s why many conservatives (and only slightly fewer liberals) are “standing hawks” - people who think only folks with very specific harms should be part of lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you do not notify us within 30 days, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new terms. WTF. This is outrageous. And I had find that email in my spam after I read this comment. Hope this POS company goes down in flames after this.
But they hold your DNA hostage. Don't you want this company to exist on so nobody gets hurt. Oh, they peaked and leaked that's why the users get TOSsed. Carry on, Sir, baldly into a classy action lawsuit against a bankrupt company were some zeroday employee will get the biggest payout by insurance ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if they can use things like opt out data to find a way screen for genetic markers of "troublemakers" or similar. DNA driven targeted advertising that finds only the most docile consumers.
They can't tell you your eye color from their DNA data with any degree of confidence, and you seriously expect them to be able to find a marker of something as vague as "troublemakers" ?!