Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, if you haven't heard, Equifax is on the hook for a databreach that affected millions of customers. They have been ordered, by the FTC, to offer each person affected $125 (more if they have proof of inconvenience) or four years free credit monitoring.
Check to see if you are affected.
Equifax Data Breach

Also know that this is looking to be a lot more costly than they anticipated and are fearing they may not be able to pay out the money the FTC ordered them to.
Maybe not $125 says FTC...
In a major buzz kill for consumers awaiting their checks, the Federal Trade Commission just updated its website with disappointing news: No, you aren’t getting $125 because of the Equifax Inc. data breach.

Less than 24 hours ago, the FTC’s Equifax settlement website stated simply that claimants could file for a $125 payout. By Thursday morning, the page no longer promised $125 and encouraged affected consumers to opt for as much as a decade of free credit monitoring instead.




“The market value of this product is hundreds of dollars per year,” the FTC now says on the website. “You can still choose the cash option on the claim form, but you will be disappointed with the amount you receive and you won’t get the free credit monitoring.”

An FTC representative didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the change.

In the site’s frequently asked questions section, the FTC addressed a claimant who might wonder, “I thought I could choose $125 instead of free credit monitoring. What happened?” The FTC’s answer: The overwhelming response to the settlement has chipped away at the $31 million amount available for compensation. Those who now choose a check over credit monitoring will get a “very small amount. Nowhere near the $125 they could have gotten if there hadn’t been such an enormous number of claims filed.”

To note: those who can prove the inconvenience this has caused them are still entitled to their compensation because that comes from a different fund.

tl;dr: Equifax had a data breach, FTC ordered them to compensate millions with service or cash option...people are choosing cash and there isn't enough to pay the promised amount.

The settlement fund is already over-claimed and you will not get $125.

 Peregrine wrote:
The settlement fund is already over-claimed and you will not get $125.

Which sucks because I was going to get started into Warcry or Necromunda with that.

This is the problem with class action and government settlements. Sterotypically the amounts awarded to class members is often small or at worst token gestures with only the lawyers making anyting in the way of any real compensation.

While you want these companies to fix these problems and the settlements are structured so as not to bankrupt them so they can stay in buisness to fix them, it just seems to become a cost of doing buisness charge, or worse becomes an underhanded way of getting more buisness or getting consumers to give up future rights.

I think it will take a government shutting a company down and/or putting company executives personally liable before this culture changes.

For once, a financial sector ballache I won’t have to deal with!

Yeah, I am pretty jazzed with my impending check for 32 cents. I hope to get into ramen noodles with that.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I am pretty jazzed with my impending check for 32 cents. I hope to get into ramen noodles with that.

You got a flavor picked out?

I seem to recall the Retail Credit Company renaming themselves Equifax after another scandal involving data.....

 nels1031 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I am pretty jazzed with my impending check for 32 cents. I hope to get into ramen noodles with that.

You got a flavor picked out?

I feel like planning that far in is just setting myself up for disappointment when the check is actually 3 cents

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
This is the problem with class action and government settlements. Sterotypically the amounts awarded to class members is often small or at worst token gestures with only the lawyers making anyting in the way of any real compensation.

While you want these companies to fix these problems and the settlements are structured so as not to bankrupt them so they can stay in buisness to fix them, it just seems to become a cost of doing buisness charge, or worse becomes an underhanded way of getting more buisness or getting consumers to give up future rights.

I think it will take a government shutting a company down and/or putting company executives personally liable before this culture changes.

This is not a bug. This is a feature.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
only the lawyers making anyting in the way of any real compensation.

I agree with your post in general but did want to put out that this settlement is with the government, so for the most part none of those lawyers will see a dime directly. The CFPB takes a percentage for their coffers, and some state agencies might, but the FTC does not. Theoretically what the CFPB takes in is supposed to offset in their budget, but that doesn't always happen.

And yeah, the fines need to be larger, no doubt. They need to be felt by a business; banks made hundreds of billions on fixing municipal bond rates but the fine was in the millions. How on earth is that going to convince them to stop?



Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed the new commissioners agreed to such a low fine with Equifax just like they did with Facebook. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

 Togusa wrote:
Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

A company that brings nearly 4 billion dollars a year trafficking in people's data against their will with no option to opt out, and when they lazily fail to protect said data (setting said customers data hostages up for a lifetime of identity theft)... even the most trivial, meaningless, insignificant slap on the wrist is deemed too much, and the victims of this scheme are the real jerks.

Truly, this really is an amazing country.

 Ouze wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

A company that brings nearly 4 billion dollars a year trafficking in data from other people's data against their will with no option to opt out, and when they lazily fail to protect said data (setting said customers data hostages up for a lifetime of identity theft)... even the most trivial, meaningless, insignificant slap on the wrist is deemed too much, and the victims of this scheme are the real jerks.

Truly, this really is an amazing country.

Yeah, shame on us. All I wanted was to improve my credit and Equifax offered to help. Equifax opened me up to further credit damage but shame on me for making them be accountable.

Something to understand is that due to the nature of US culture and politics, lawsuits are the main means (and often the only means) common people have to push back against mistreatment by large corporations.

 Togusa wrote:
Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

Will do. You are crazy.

People are right to take a company to task for not protecting information that should have been protected. It was part of the (one-sided and essentially forced upon consumers) agreement that this company had with consumers: protect their information while making said information available to those who actually needed it. They failed on both counts, and they 100% should be taken to task for it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Something to understand is that due to the nature of US culture and politics, lawsuits are the main means (and often the only means) common people have to push back against mistreatment by large corporations.

And also the unregulated gravy train of money that hack legal firms use to line their own pockets for with frivolous lawsuits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

Will do. You are crazy.

People are right to take a company to task for not protecting information that should have been protected. It was part of the (one-sided and essentially forced upon consumers) agreement that this company had with consumers: protect their information while making said information available to those who actually needed it. They failed on both counts, and they 100% should be taken to task for it.

I would say don't use their service. I don't ever use any of these services, because I know that no matter how much you try, nothing is ever electronically secure.

Togusa wrote:Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

While yes, the sue happy culture exists to an extent, remember it is often within corporate interests to make the victim seem like a greedy idiot etc. If the public consensus is that the person suing a company is that they are someone just looking for a payout rather than to address a wrong, it is easier to dismiss it as frivolous.

Togusa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Something to understand is that due to the nature of US culture and politics, lawsuits are the main means (and often the only means) common people have to push back against mistreatment by large corporations.

And also the unregulated gravy train of money that hack legal firms use to line their own pockets for with frivolous lawsuits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Call me crazy, but I am not one of those people that jumps on this stuff.

Americans are too ready to take someone else for task when something goes wrong. Sue happy culture. I won't be a part of it, even if that breach did affect me.

Will do. You are crazy.

People are right to take a company to task for not protecting information that should have been protected. It was part of the (one-sided and essentially forced upon consumers) agreement that this company had with consumers: protect their information while making said information available to those who actually needed it. They failed on both counts, and they 100% should be taken to task for it.

I would say don't use their service. I don't ever use any of these services, because I know that no matter how much you try, nothing is ever electronically secure.

Was there a choice in avoiding Equifax? As far as I remember (and I haven't looked into it too deeply so I could be wrong), they tracked your credit history regardless of whether you signed up for them or not.

 Togusa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Something to understand is that due to the nature of US culture and politics, lawsuits are the main means (and often the only means) common people have to push back against mistreatment by large corporations.

And also the unregulated gravy train of money that hack legal firms use to line their own pockets for with frivolous lawsuits.

Note that the corporations themselves spend vast sums of money to establish and promote the viewpoint that frivolous lawsuits are rampant when in reality they make up a tiny minority. The "hot coffee" case is probably the best known example of that in action.

 Togusa wrote:
I would say don't use their service.

Not sure if you legitimately don't know how a credit reporting service works, or if you're trolling by route of being intentionally obtuse.

"Don't use their service" is not an option.

Equifax builds a profile of your credit history to sell to people who do credit checks. They are a business to business company - generally speaking, you're not their customer. You are their product.

I've never done business with Equifax in any way, but they built a profile on me as their business, sold it as their business, and failed to protect my data as they should have - even after being warned they were exposing secure systems in an insecure way to the open internet months before the hack occurred - leaving me to deal with the lifetime of ramifications from that.

Have we really reached the point where suing a company for out and out malfeasance and reckless disregard for the public is frivolous just because lawyers can be douche bags?

I'd find a "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, but I think I've become so disappointed I don't care to meme anymore...

 LordofHats wrote:
Have we really reached the point where suing a company for out and out malfeasance and reckless disregard for the public is frivolous just because lawyers can be douche bags?

I'd find a "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme, but I think I've become so disappointed I don't care to meme anymore...

Lawyers get a bad rap and im not sure why.
They are hired to do a job, help their employer, sometimes in a scummy way yes.
But that is as american as it gets, do a job, even if you have to do it in a scummy way.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Lawyers get a bad rap and im not sure why.
They are hired to do a job, help their employer, sometimes in a scummy way yes.

Oh, I agree. Everyone complains about a lawyer, until they need one.

That said, there's lots of studies out there now talking about how (mostly in corporate and tort law), law firms behave in ways that are primarily to benefit themselves, not their clients and I will never shun someone for thinking that makes lawyers look sleazy.

But ignoring that Equifax legit fethed swathes of people over, people who had 0 say in the matter, because lawyers can sometimes maybe be bad guys themselves is backward.

More importantly, how the actual feth was it even legal for aompany to compose a file of sensitive information about you and then use/sell that information without your consent?

In Europe it's not. not that that makes a difference.

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Every court system has rules of procedure designed to root out frivolous, vexatious or abusive claims.

Raise your games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:
In Europe it's not. not that that makes a difference.

In fact, it is totally lawful in Europe and done on a grand scale every single day.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Dunno. I've needed solicitors and still hate them. Don't hate barristers, mind.

Well I guess that's one benefit of a divided profession...

IMO it isn't that people are wrong about lawyers being sleazy and self-interested on average, it is that they are wrong about everyone else not being that way. So many problems people complain about would be solved if said people just decided to be better people. We have the world we deserve, that's for sure.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IMO it isn't that people are wrong about lawyers being sleazy and self-interested on average, it is that they are wrong about everyone else not being that way. So many problems people complain about would be solved if said people just decided to be better people. We have the world we deserve, that's for sure.

I don't think it's even that. I think it's just that people are essentially obliged* to engage solicitors in a variety of circumstances that almost everyone will find themselves in - and they cost a fortune. I think lots of folks just resent what frequently seems to simply be paying a solicitor so that a separate transaction can happen. Pursuing a corporation is obviously a different kettle of fish.

*sure you can do it yourself, but even if you're a solicitor yourself that's almost always going to go very, very badly.