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

Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#61

Post by gruez »

mikeyouse wrote: post #58
gruez wrote: post #6

>She was then served electronically with papers from the US District Court of Florida outlining Adidas' case against her. I don't get it, based on this[1] it looks like electronic service is only possible if the party consented. That seems fairly reasonable. How would this have happened? Is there more to this? The docket for this case is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66634655/adidas-ag-v-th... . I'd be v…

Jesus.. It's really bleak. It's mostly a link to this website: https://servingnotice.com/Da29d1x/index.html Apparently "Serving Notice dot com" is sufficient to say someone has been served? I downloaded the Pacer documents with Recap enabled so you should be able to see them on the CourtListener website.

>Apparently "Serving Notice dot com" is sufficient to say someone has been served?

Apparently, because the judge allowed it. Looking at the relevant document[1], the reason that was allowed was that:

1. the defendant is foreign

2. "the defendants conducted their businesses over the Internet"

3. "the defendants used e-mail regularly in their businesses"

4. "the plaintiff shows e-mail is likely to reach defendants"

[1] https://servingnotice.com/Da29d1x/015%20-%20221221%20[_]%20O...

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#62

Post by NotYourLawyer »

jacquesm wrote: post #60
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hire a lawyer and get it sorted out pretty easily, I would think.

Right because if some idiots in a country where you've never been get their paperwork wrong it should bankrupt you... Note that you're effectively arguing for your own book here, this shouldn't require a lawyer and it should have never gotten this far.

I mean... mistakes get made. It shouldn't be hard to get this one reversed if that's all there is to it, but hiring a lawyer is absolutely the right way to make that happen. By all means, try to recover attorney's fees after the fact.

But sticking your head in the sand and complaining about it isn't going to get you very far.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#64

Post by jjoonathan »

tbrownaw wrote: post #47
qingcharles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's lucky he found out about the summons, because it's very common to commit a traffic infraction, get pulled over and then find yourself facedown at gunpoint when the cop finds out you have several warrants for crimes you never committed. And depending on your ethnicity it could certainly lead to your untimely demise by police if you got belligerent about it.

> very common Are there statistics on this somewhere?

ALPRs are everywhere these days. "Very common" is probably understatement in this situation.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#65

Post by wahnfrieden »

tbrownaw wrote: post #47
qingcharles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's lucky he found out about the summons, because it's very common to commit a traffic infraction, get pulled over and then find yourself facedown at gunpoint when the cop finds out you have several warrants for crimes you never committed. And depending on your ethnicity it could certainly lead to your untimely demise by police if you got belligerent about it.

> very common Are there statistics on this somewhere?

Cop oversight stats largely don’t exist because it would challenge their authority

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#66

Post by jacquesm »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right because if some idiots in a country where you've never been get their paperwork wrong it should bankrupt you... Note that you're effectively arguing for your own book here, this shouldn't require a lawyer and it should have never gotten this far.

I mean... mistakes get made. It shouldn't be hard to get this one reversed if that's all there is to it, but hiring a lawyer is absolutely the right way to make that happen. By all means, try to recover attorney's fees after the fact. But sticking your head in the sand and complaining about it isn't going to get you very far.

This goes well beyond mistakes, it is utterly absurd that the judge would not look at this more closely absent a defendant in a country on the other side of the planet, especially when this kind of money is involved. It's not a $50 parking ticket.

Imagine yourself in their situation, having to defend a legal case in court in a place where you've never been to that has no bearing on anything you've done in your life. That makes the world's population open to being sued for profit in these courts because the courts simply don't do their job. A mistake is when you pass the pepper instead of the salt. This is ruining someone's life.

From TFA:

"Ms Luke has engaged an intellectual property lawyer in the United States, with an initial engagement fee of $US10,000 ($14,800), in a bid to have the rulings overturned and the damages retracted. "

"The single mother of four said the situation was taking its toll.

"The anxiety that this causes, not knowing if they are going to come and take our house, can they freeze my assets, can they get access to my bank accounts?

"We just don't know and it really is a case of guilty until I can prove otherwise.""

That engagement fee is on the low side and yet I think that 99% of the people that might get caught up in stuff like this have absolutely no way of paying that kind of money to correct something they have part in. Besides, the suggestion that you can recoup your legal fees is not really fair: in practice you won't be able to recoup all your fees and you certainly won't be able to recover your time or the stress.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#67

Post by michaelteter »

This is really stupid. Follow the money. If she had been responsible for the theft, the money collected should somehow be traceable back to her. Obviously it would not be, and given the data breach she would have plausible deniability.

Furthermore, no sane lawyer would hope to recover such large numbers from a single mother of four children. There is no value in prodding a legal system to render a pointless judgement against a plaintiff who is very likely not responsible for the crime.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#68

Post by javajosh »

anigbrowl wrote: post #49
javajosh wrote: post #43

"In both cases, Adidas and the NBA were given leave by the courts to run the cases ex parte — without a requirement for all parties in the case to be present. " Wait, what? I thought habeas corpus was a thing in the US?

Habeas corpus only applies to criminal cases, and it's about the state having to justify its detention of an arrested person. You can be tried and convicted in absentia although this is quite unusual. But you see a few murder cases prosecuted against fugitives every year if the evidence is strong enough.

Well that's terrifying. People can sue you in civil court and you don't even have to be present or notified that the trial is happening and then be on the hook for millions of dollars? Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with that?

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#69

Post by bbatsell »

staticautomatic wrote: post #52
ganoushoreilly wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misread but if they were Exparte, were they implying she wasn't there and it's possible all these verdicts were handed down without any of her input? In that case the companies may not / wouldn't know? Either way still a horrible situation.

Ex parte just means it’s an emergency and you need the court to move fast

No, ex parte means not requiring a party that would normally be required. It is _also_ used in emergencies because the process of pleadings, answers, and replies would be too slow, so you are asking the court to temporarily ignore the rule that the other party respond before the court issues some sort of order or response.

Re: Byron Bay data breach victim told to pay Adidas, NBA $1.2M by US courts

#70

Post by TheRealSteel »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #50
boondoggle16 wrote: post #32

So what do you do in a situation like this? I mean really? Total punisher mode, make other judges think twice and sacrifice yourself?

Hire a lawyer and get it sorted out pretty easily, I would think.

Most people cannot afford a lawyer, even if they work full time.
Post reply on HN