9 ms·

> For every SSN entered, Equifax can say in a class action lawsuit that they have waivers from all the following SSNs .... Equifax themselves have said they'll

> For every SSN entered, Equifax can say in a class action lawsuit that they have waivers from all the following SSNs .... Equifax themselves have said they'll only use the waiver with respect to the credit monitoring service, and not to the security breach: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/08/equifax-says-it-wont-bar-consumers-from-joining-breach-related-lawsuits/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/08/equifax-says-it-wont-bar-c... You could say, "Maybe they're lying", but it seems like it would be pretty easy for the class action attorneys to act on your behalf here.

jerf 9y ago
They're not lying, because the act of saying it made it true. A court would no longer permit them that argument because the counterparty would just present that highly public statement. (Maybe there's a tiny chance they could wiggle out of it, but they would have to find a human judge who would let them, and I imagine those are in short supply in a case like this.) See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Est...
- beojan 9y ago
  > they would have to find a human judge who would let them, and I imagine those are in short supply in a case like this.) Would it be possible to find any judge who can try this case, since the set of people affected by the breach is basically everyone?
  - ztjio 9y ago
    Yeah that actually makes it irrelevant. The concern of people being impacted is about biases. If everyone is impacted the bias is no different than the base concept of peer justice in the first place.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I have taken a bunch of law classes. IIRC, the judge doesn't need to recuse themselves of any/all cases where they are impacted, only that they must recuse themselves where they would be unable to be unbiased, or where there would be an appearance of being unbiased. In the lower courts, when in doubt, that's decided by other judges. At the SCOTUS level, that's decided by the individual judge on an individual level. So, yes... They will find a judge.
takeda 9y ago
They said that after New York Attorney General complained that this is not enforceable. I'm pretty sure they were hoping it would stick.

jerf 9y ago

They're not lying, because the act of saying it made it true. A court would no longer permit them that argument because the counterparty would just present that highly public statement. (Maybe there's a tiny chance they could wiggle out of it, but they would have to find a human judge who would let them, and I imagine those are in short supply in a case like this.) See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Est...

beojan 9y ago
> they would have to find a human judge who would let them, and I imagine those are in short supply in a case like this.) Would it be possible to find any judge who can try this case, since the set of people affected by the breach is basically everyone?
- ztjio 9y ago
  Yeah that actually makes it irrelevant. The concern of people being impacted is about biases. If everyone is impacted the bias is no different than the base concept of peer justice in the first place.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I have taken a bunch of law classes. IIRC, the judge doesn't need to recuse themselves of any/all cases where they are impacted, only that they must recuse themselves where they would be unable to be unbiased, or where there would be an appearance of being unbiased. In the lower courts, when in doubt, that's decided by other judges. At the SCOTUS level, that's decided by the individual judge on an individual level. So, yes... They will find a judge.

takeda 9y ago

They said that after New York Attorney General complained that this is not enforceable. I'm pretty sure they were hoping it would stick.