5 ms·

Tell HN: We'll pay for you to sue Equifax

216 points by evashang 9y ago

YC16 company Legalist is paying for you to sue Equifax in small claims court. We'll get you a complaint, filing fees, instructions. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170914005511/en/Legalist-Pay-Data-Breach-Victims-Sue-Equifax https://www.legalist.com/equifax/

justboxing 9y ago
What's in this for Legalist? From their home page: > All legal bills covered. > Litigation is expensive. Whether it’s attorney’s fees or that expert witness report you need to prove damages, litigation costs can add up. When you’re backed by Legalist, you don’t have to worry about unexpected legal expenses. Focus on growing your business, and we’ll take care of it. I'm always skeptical of assurances like this.
- sodafountan 9y ago
  You only pay if you win the case is what I gather from the site, they're confidant enough that you'll win in a small claims suit against Equifax while at the same time advertising their services.
- asn0 9y ago
  From their FAQ[1] looks like they take a cut of winnings: > Only if you win your case is repayment deducted from your recovery. Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs. 1. https://www.legalist.com/faqs/ https://www.legalist.com/faqs/ Edit: formatting
- evashang 9y ago
  Litigation finance is like a contingency arrangement - if you file the case and the judge dismisses it, there's no risk to you. But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you.
  - spinlock 9y ago
    FYI - when you dodge the question this way, you look as bad as equifax. What is in it for you? Do you take a percentage of the judgement? I'll probably end up paying a lawyer to advise me on the best way to get back at Equifax. But, I'm not going to do business with you because you're shady and won't disclose your interest in this case.
    - evashang 9y ago
      Hey! As you'll find on our website, we take a third of the judgment as a contingency stake, as per our usual practice.
      - jellicle 9y ago
        It doesn't say that anywhere on the website. The language used is specifically vague to accommodate a wide range of fee percentages. "Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs. Apply now to get a rate!"
      - spinlock 9y ago
        Do you have a link? I looked over your website and I found no information about you fees.
    - i_cant_speel 9y ago
      He did answer your question. "But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you"
      - traek 9y ago
        She* [0] [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshang/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshang/
        i_cant_speel 9y ago
        Oops. I thought about that after I submitted the comment, but the app I was using doesn't give me the option to edit the comment.
- LusoTycoon 9y ago
  If the class law suit wins, they get their share. And it already seems certain to win by now, I imagine.
  - evashang 9y ago
    Just a clarification - while there are multiple class action lawsuits against Equifax, Legalist is funding individual consumers to take action in small claims court. It's faster and you're likely to recover more.
    - sodafountan 9y ago
      It's also harder to litigate on Equifax's part. Often times they just attempt to settle
      - evashang 9y ago
        Absolutely! The only authorized representatives are company officers or lawyers, and many small claims courts don't allow lawyers. So unless the CEO of Equifax attends every court hearing in the country, or unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court, you're likely to recover. (not a lawyer, not legal advice)
        kd0amg 9y ago
        unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court How common is this?
        xie_alan 9y ago
        From what I've read on some law blogs, this doesn't happen often at all, and were it to happen, it would also mean that there's no reason for Equifax not to also deal with these cases in a class action.
        imglorp 9y ago
        Furthermore, can the court compel some kind of class-action suit if it realizes there's a small claims backlog of thousands of plaintiffs against the same defendant for the same issue? This thing could clog all the SC courts in the country if all 100mm people file like this.
xie_alan 9y ago
Saw this earlier this morning: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41257576 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41257576 These guys should be, at the very least, fined by the government for how blatantly careless they were with consumers' PII. I can't believe the credit bureau oligopoly in the United States is this technologically incompetent, but I suppose it's not surprising given the lack of economic incentive to innovate. Hefty fines / settlement payouts should do the trick...
eknight15 9y ago
Got a 500 Error after applying
- chaigh 9y ago
  Hey eknight15, I'm the CTO @ Legalist. mind shooting me the console logs? christian @ legalist . com
  - agilecanary 9y ago
    Use https://sentry.io/for/javascript https://sentry.io/for/javascript
  - eknight15 9y ago
    Nothing in console https://imgur.com/a/mXUIC https://imgur.com/a/mXUIC It takes me to /equifax-sent/ but title is 500 Error
    - sguha 9y ago
      I'm getting the same problem
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    How am I supposed to know what court I'll be filing in?
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    Got the same. It appears to be the redirect after a successful submission.
bllguo 9y ago
is the only way to find out if you're affected still that dodgy equifaxsecurity2017.com site? What happened to those accusations of random output? would love to be able to use legalist but I'm not even sure if I'm a victim
- inostia 9y ago
  Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected. How do you prove this in court? "Your honor, I gave a Dark Web hacker some bitcoin and they said I was definitely affected."
    - inostia 9y ago
      The funny thing is, the Legalist form to apply here: https://www.legalist.com/equifax/#apply-form https://www.legalist.com/equifax/#apply-form points to the Equifax page here: https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/potential-impact/ https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/potential-impact/ As far as I remember, you could enter any random information into their form and it will say you were affected. That is the proof that Legalist is asking to provide the basis for the suit.
      - xie_alan 9y ago
        I've had friends enter information into that form and it said they weren't affected. AFAIK the Equifax backend is complete garbage and they've been very careful to disclaim a positive match by saying your information is "potentially impacted." Seems like they have no idea of knowing/proving whether someone actually has your specific information, but can check whether your information resided at one point on the specific server/database that was compromised?
eloff 9y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but don't you have to prove that you've suffered material losses to prevail in court? I'm not sure you're entitled to anything just because you've been put at risk for identity theft.
- DeathRabbit 9y ago
  This can be another service! You pay me some bitcoin to commit ID theft. I do it, create havok all up in your business. Voila! Damage done, now go and sue. Money to be made all around on this deal. Seriously, though, IANAL but I think you're right, I've read a couple other statements to that effect, that you'd have a hard time suing for the _potential_ for trouble. And would a judge require you to _prove_ an ID Theft was the result of the Equifax breach or just one of the other, smaller breaches?
  - gthtjtkt 9y ago
    I'd recommend one of the more privacy-oriented coins, like Monero :p
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  We're all gonna need a lifetime of credit monitoring. Equifax is only offering it for the first year, so figure out what an average lifetime's worth is gonna cost you...
  - rhino369 9y ago
    We are going about this the wrong way. We don't all need credit monitoring. It's just that the type of data they had is no longer secure and shouldn't be used to tie me to a transaction. Just because someone has my SSN and my name doesn't mean they are me. Making it my job to monitor for fraud is bs.
yang2007chun 9y ago
I get 500 too. And there is no console log at all...
- chaigh 9y ago
  For those getting 500 errors, the issue should now be fixed!
clarkevans 9y ago
The least Equifax should do is stop charging for monitoring changes, freezing and unfreezing our records.
- smsm42 9y ago
  Fees for freezing/unfreezing sound like a scam - it literally costs them zero to do this (since they have already made the system for doing it) and given the rampant fraud for which they have little protection - they should just make it easy and free. I am generally very laissez-faire person, but this is one of the cases where I'd probably be grudgingly ok with some regulation.
DeathRabbit 9y ago
OK, on the site under the reg info it says to "Verify" you were part of the breach by using Equifax's verification site. Hasn't it already been established that this site is giving (at best) inconsistent results? So if their of-dubious-use tool says I wasn't impacted I have no recourse? Also, the amounts available in small claims court seems like peanuts compared to my data being "out there" permanently. This is just a general observation--I'm not impugning Legalist with this statement at all. I guess it may seem like small potatoes weighed against the risks, it's not like everyone impacted by this could get appropriate remuneration for the potential lifelong BS caused by this.
- k3oni 9y ago
  What do you think will come out of the class-action lawsuits and how much do you think people will get per capita after the lawyers are paid? I have a feeling that in small courts you can at least get more than that. PA for example has a max of $12k claim amount.
  - DeathRabbit 9y ago
    Oh, yes, totally agree that the class action suits will result in a sweet $15 check or something. I guess my poorly phrased lament was just in reflection that even the max payout in small claims doesn't seem like a great result given that this stuff is out there permanently. I read some stats that indicated an average of 330 hours for a person to work through fraud on their credit reports or otherwise clean up an ID theft event.
    - whataretensors 9y ago
      Having been a victim of identity theft I'd say that's accurate, if not low. It took me 10 years to clean up the whole thing(and I'm still worried about random letters).
    - k3oni 9y ago
      The other way to deal with this would be to not do anything right now and exclude yourself form the class action. In case something would be to happen you have the option to sue for full face value as long as it can be proven that this hack is related or the cause, but again that is a big if. And i'm not a lawyer just thinking out loud.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deskamess 9y ago
Any options for previous US residents who are now out of the country? BTW, what are you giving up when you sue Equifax and win? Does winning absolve Equifax of any liability or need to help you in case of future identity theft?
devy 9y ago
I am a Equifax data leak victim. How do I know Legalist is dependable and trustworthy so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time? And small claim court filling fee is only less than $100 (in my state it's $35, appeal is $250 refundable). And maximum claim amount in small claim court in my state is $3000. Is it worthy for me to trust another 3rd party with my sensitive information to get at most 3k (in reality it will be much less and there is also the fee from Legalist). I personally don't think this is a useful service AT ALL.
- xie_alan 9y ago
  Also a victim. I personally would rather get a 4-figure settlement in small claims court instead of a $5 check in five years from a class action. IANAL, but it doesn't look like Legalist is handling any information that you wouldn't be making publicly available in a court filing were you to do this yourself. As someone who doesn't have the time or diligence to do all this myself, I actually find this pretty useful.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time? No problem. If that happens, Legalist would be happy to finance you suing them in a small claims court!
JshWright 9y ago
So, "ambulance chasing" meets "webscale"?
- xie_alan 9y ago
  Better call Saul!
  - failrate 9y ago
    Saul as a service
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      JaaS
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    Saul?
    - j_s 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Call_Saul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Call_Saul
MaymayMaster 9y ago
>Making users enroll on https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/ https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/ Piss off.
spraak 9y ago
From what I understand, there isn't any financial risk for someone using this? I.e. since their payment is contingent on you winning?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jdshaf 9y ago
The website says: "File suit and repay Legalist only if your case is successful." Do I owe legalist their fee if I win, but am unable to collect from Equifax?
- evashang 9y ago
  Legalist is repaid only in the event you recover money directly!
matt_wulfeck 9y ago
I thought about this, but how do you prove damages? Judges don't like you wasting their time with theoretical losses. The best I could come up with is the cost of credit monitoring ($20 a month) for life. Does anyone have recommendations for quantifying the damages? Something the judge won't toss out? Also why does this make us put in the court where we will file? Doesn't it need to be where Equifax is located, and won't it be the same for everyone?
- takeda 9y ago
  And monitoring doesn't prevent issues from happening if something happens it apparently takes 330 hours on average to fix it.
- VectorLock 9y ago
  I think at the very least the cost of having to do a credit freeze. That really ticks me off the most about this. These guys collect you information without your explicit permission then when one of them fucks up and that data gets you YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM TO STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING.
- etjossem 9y ago
  I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice backed by any level of expertise in the law. But if I had to write a complaint for small claims right now, here's what I'd bring up: -- FCRA § 604. states that "any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other", and lists allowable reasons to dispense a credit report. FCRA § 607. requires compliance, stating that an agency must "limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604." FCRA § 616. imposes civil liability for willful noncompliance at a minimum of $1000, even if that is greater than actual damages already sustained. (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ..<snip>.. (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; ..<snip>.. (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; -- This suggests to me that you will be able to seek "actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater", plus any punitive damages the court awards (I do not believe this is generally done in small claims). You would need to demonstrate that the failure to safeguard your information was willful.
GavinB 9y ago
I submitted my data but I'm getting an "unknown request" on the URL https://www.legalist.com/equifax-sent/ https://www.legalist.com/equifax-sent/ Also, it's unclear what court you're supposed to file in. I did some research and, at least in New York, you're supposed to file a claim where the defendant does business. I put my local county small claims court in (New York County Civil Court), but I'm not sure if that was right. Maybe because Equifax is such a big company doing business everywhere I can file in my local court? Otherwise it looks like I would need to file in Atlanta, where their headquarters is.
ABCLAW 9y ago
For individuals considering this, note that champerty arrangements are illegal in certain jurisdictions. If you get hit for that, you're on the hook, not them. That's explicit in their ToS. Have fun, kiddos.
- xie_alan 9y ago
  IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? I don't think there's any remotely recent precedent for state-level champerty statutes (the few that still exist) being enforced in a commercial litigation context, and I think this situation is one in which the plaintiffs (Equifax data breach victims) are already planning to file suit, thus not rising to the level of "champerty and maintenance" being applied to frivolous litigation that such statutes aim to prevent.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    >IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? Nope. Third party lending as a broad policy trend has certainly opened up over time, but some states still have the restriction, others have reformed it, others call it a different thing and some have abolished it. Is the risk substantial in your specific case? Maybe not. Maybe it is. Just know there's a risk there and you're the one eating it.
basseq 9y ago
The website makes no mention of the "complaint" promised in the OP. Is this just litigation finance, or litigation support as well?
neekb 9y ago
Pretty interesting article discussing the ability to achieve "standing" in court related to a data breach that doesn't immediately result in a loss: https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2016/novemberdecember/section-review-health-law-2 https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2016/no...
civilian 9y ago
How much is legalist recommending we take Equifax to small claims court for? $500? 1k?
smsm42 9y ago
AFAIK small claims court are pretty informal, and most do not allow one to be represented (as opposed to advised, which is allowed) by a lawyer. So I imagine you come to the court, and the judge asks you "OK, tell me why you are suing Equifax", and you, being true to the promise to tell the truth and fearing perjury, answer "I've read an ad from a law firm which promised me that I can sue them for free and get money from it, so that's the reason I am here in the court today - just trying to grab some money from this opportunity". I would be surprised if the judge would be overly sympathetic. [1] And since judges probably have seen pretty much everything under the sun, they probably would get the gist of it even if you don't answer in these exact words. And I am not sure judges would also be sympathetic to "auto-lawsuit" setups where you are allowed t generate lawsuit by filling a form without anybody actually ensuring there's a case. And Legalist seems to be advertising "automatic" support - i.e. without even considering if you actually have the case or not. It's basically automatic lawsuit generator. I don't think it'd make judges happy. Lawsuit financing may be a great idea - I actually like this approach - but turning it into opportunistic money-grabbing mill is probably makes more harm than good. [1] If you don't believe people really answer like that, check this out: https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/08/18/food-court-follies-fraud-suits-fall-apart-after-plaintiffs-candid-admissions-during-discovery/ https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/08/18/food-court-follies-frau...
- xie_alan 9y ago
  That's for sure why people participate in class-action lawsuits against big companies like Red Bull, but isn't the whole point that people have had their privacy violated? I can't see a plaintiff showing up to court and not saying something along the lines of "Equifax lost my data and I want to be compensated." Maybe Plaintiff John Doe isn't going to be able to exhaustively demonstrate quantifiable material damages, but maybe the court hands out a default judgment. The real opportunistic money-grabbers here are Equifax...they took their own data breach, which is basically historically unprecedented in its scale, and used it as a way to shill one of their own credit score monitoring products. That, IMO, is despicable. If it's easier to sue these guys for their negligence, so be it.
  - smsm42 9y ago
radvocate 9y ago
This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple. Do you want to file a claim now for a few hundred dollars in SC court, or wait until you actually have real damages to cover? If you file and win now, you're out of luck with your future damages.
- xie_alan 9y ago
  My knowledge of identity theft is admittedly limited to TV documentaries...but if your identity is stolen five years from now and the fraudsters rack up thousands of dollars in loans and bills under your name, is there a way for you to link that crime to the Equifax hack? I could see a lawyer making the very shaky argument that John Doe could have had their personal information hacked elsewhere and that there's no evidence connecting the thieves to Equifax.
jlgaddis 9y ago
Off-topic (but somewhat related, perhaps?) question for any of you who and submitted the form (no cheating, please!): What type of SSL certificate -- DV or EV -- did the Legalist web site have, if any? I'm just interested in {whether|how many of} you bothered to look before submitting your information. (I'm asking because I was reminded of a recent HN discussion about DV/EV certificates and this seemed as good of a "test case" as any.)
- xie_alan 9y ago
  I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy. I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare. I might be mistaken, but aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities?
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    > I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy. Sure. It was a discussion [0] of an article by Troy Hunt entitled "On the Perceived Value of EV Certs, Commercial CAs, Phishing and Let's Encrypt" [1]. (There have been a few other recent discussions [2,3] that also mentioned EV that you might be interested in.) > I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare. That seems to be a pretty common setup (for "easy"), as well as static sites on AWS S3, etc. Most of my sites run WordPress on my own (physical) servers so I can't personally comment on those methods. > ...aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities? That seems to be the popular opinion (at least here on HN), though I can understand the desire to use EV over DV in certain situations. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805233 [1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/on-the-perceived-value-ev-certs-cas-phishing-lets-encrypt/ https://www.troyhunt.com/on-the-perceived-value-ev-certs-cas... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14749565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14749565 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15221119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15221119
radvocate 9y ago
This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple - if you sue in SC court and win $100, it extinguishes your ability to sue again for new damages. And let's face it, our real damages aren't apparent yet. Also, SC is probably your worst option, as far as ROI goes. If you want a more strategic sense of your legal options, check out: http://myradvocate.com/new-blog/2017/9/10/5vpvo8j70gnergoci432n4grj2017p http://myradvocate.com/new-blog/2017/9/10/5vpvo8j70gnergoci4...

216 points by evashang 9y ago

justboxing 9y ago

What's in this for Legalist? From their home page: > All legal bills covered. > Litigation is expensive. Whether it’s attorney’s fees or that expert witness report you need to prove damages, litigation costs can add up. When you’re backed by Legalist, you don’t have to worry about unexpected legal expenses. Focus on growing your business, and we’ll take care of it. I'm always skeptical of assurances like this.

sodafountan 9y ago
You only pay if you win the case is what I gather from the site, they're confidant enough that you'll win in a small claims suit against Equifax while at the same time advertising their services.
asn0 9y ago
From their FAQ[1] looks like they take a cut of winnings: > Only if you win your case is repayment deducted from your recovery. Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs. 1. https://www.legalist.com/faqs/ https://www.legalist.com/faqs/ Edit: formatting
evashang 9y ago
Litigation finance is like a contingency arrangement - if you file the case and the judge dismisses it, there's no risk to you. But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you.
- spinlock 9y ago
  FYI - when you dodge the question this way, you look as bad as equifax. What is in it for you? Do you take a percentage of the judgement? I'll probably end up paying a lawyer to advise me on the best way to get back at Equifax. But, I'm not going to do business with you because you're shady and won't disclose your interest in this case.
  - evashang 9y ago
    Hey! As you'll find on our website, we take a third of the judgment as a contingency stake, as per our usual practice.
    - jellicle 9y ago
      It doesn't say that anywhere on the website. The language used is specifically vague to accommodate a wide range of fee percentages. "Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs. Apply now to get a rate!"
    - spinlock 9y ago
      Do you have a link? I looked over your website and I found no information about you fees.
  - i_cant_speel 9y ago
    He did answer your question. "But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you"
    - traek 9y ago
      She* [0] [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshang/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshang/
      - i_cant_speel 9y ago
        Oops. I thought about that after I submitted the comment, but the app I was using doesn't give me the option to edit the comment.
LusoTycoon 9y ago
If the class law suit wins, they get their share. And it already seems certain to win by now, I imagine.
- evashang 9y ago
  Just a clarification - while there are multiple class action lawsuits against Equifax, Legalist is funding individual consumers to take action in small claims court. It's faster and you're likely to recover more.
  - sodafountan 9y ago
    It's also harder to litigate on Equifax's part. Often times they just attempt to settle
    - evashang 9y ago
      Absolutely! The only authorized representatives are company officers or lawyers, and many small claims courts don't allow lawyers. So unless the CEO of Equifax attends every court hearing in the country, or unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court, you're likely to recover. (not a lawyer, not legal advice)
      - kd0amg 9y ago
        unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court How common is this?
        xie_alan 9y ago
        From what I've read on some law blogs, this doesn't happen often at all, and were it to happen, it would also mean that there's no reason for Equifax not to also deal with these cases in a class action.
        imglorp 9y ago
        Furthermore, can the court compel some kind of class-action suit if it realizes there's a small claims backlog of thousands of plaintiffs against the same defendant for the same issue? This thing could clog all the SC courts in the country if all 100mm people file like this.

xie_alan 9y ago

Saw this earlier this morning: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41257576 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41257576 These guys should be, at the very least, fined by the government for how blatantly careless they were with consumers' PII. I can't believe the credit bureau oligopoly in the United States is this technologically incompetent, but I suppose it's not surprising given the lack of economic incentive to innovate. Hefty fines / settlement payouts should do the trick...

eknight15 9y ago

Got a 500 Error after applying

chaigh 9y ago
Hey eknight15, I'm the CTO @ Legalist. mind shooting me the console logs? christian @ legalist . com
- agilecanary 9y ago
  Use https://sentry.io/for/javascript https://sentry.io/for/javascript
- eknight15 9y ago
  Nothing in console https://imgur.com/a/mXUIC https://imgur.com/a/mXUIC It takes me to /equifax-sent/ but title is 500 Error
  - sguha 9y ago
    I'm getting the same problem
- muninn_ 9y ago
  How am I supposed to know what court I'll be filing in?
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Got the same. It appears to be the redirect after a successful submission.

bllguo 9y ago

is the only way to find out if you're affected still that dodgy equifaxsecurity2017.com site? What happened to those accusations of random output? would love to be able to use legalist but I'm not even sure if I'm a victim

inostia 9y ago
Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected. How do you prove this in court? "Your honor, I gave a Dark Web hacker some bitcoin and they said I was definitely affected."
  - inostia 9y ago
    The funny thing is, the Legalist form to apply here: https://www.legalist.com/equifax/#apply-form https://www.legalist.com/equifax/#apply-form points to the Equifax page here: https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/potential-impact/ https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/potential-impact/ As far as I remember, you could enter any random information into their form and it will say you were affected. That is the proof that Legalist is asking to provide the basis for the suit.
    - xie_alan 9y ago
      I've had friends enter information into that form and it said they weren't affected. AFAIK the Equifax backend is complete garbage and they've been very careful to disclaim a positive match by saying your information is "potentially impacted." Seems like they have no idea of knowing/proving whether someone actually has your specific information, but can check whether your information resided at one point on the specific server/database that was compromised?

eloff 9y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but don't you have to prove that you've suffered material losses to prevail in court? I'm not sure you're entitled to anything just because you've been put at risk for identity theft.

DeathRabbit 9y ago
This can be another service! You pay me some bitcoin to commit ID theft. I do it, create havok all up in your business. Voila! Damage done, now go and sue. Money to be made all around on this deal. Seriously, though, IANAL but I think you're right, I've read a couple other statements to that effect, that you'd have a hard time suing for the _potential_ for trouble. And would a judge require you to _prove_ an ID Theft was the result of the Equifax breach or just one of the other, smaller breaches?
- gthtjtkt 9y ago
  I'd recommend one of the more privacy-oriented coins, like Monero :p
ceejayoz 9y ago
We're all gonna need a lifetime of credit monitoring. Equifax is only offering it for the first year, so figure out what an average lifetime's worth is gonna cost you...
- rhino369 9y ago
  We are going about this the wrong way. We don't all need credit monitoring. It's just that the type of data they had is no longer secure and shouldn't be used to tie me to a transaction. Just because someone has my SSN and my name doesn't mean they are me. Making it my job to monitor for fraud is bs.

yang2007chun 9y ago

I get 500 too. And there is no console log at all...

chaigh 9y ago
For those getting 500 errors, the issue should now be fixed!

clarkevans 9y ago

The least Equifax should do is stop charging for monitoring changes, freezing and unfreezing our records.

smsm42 9y ago
Fees for freezing/unfreezing sound like a scam - it literally costs them zero to do this (since they have already made the system for doing it) and given the rampant fraud for which they have little protection - they should just make it easy and free. I am generally very laissez-faire person, but this is one of the cases where I'd probably be grudgingly ok with some regulation.

DeathRabbit 9y ago

OK, on the site under the reg info it says to "Verify" you were part of the breach by using Equifax's verification site. Hasn't it already been established that this site is giving (at best) inconsistent results? So if their of-dubious-use tool says I wasn't impacted I have no recourse? Also, the amounts available in small claims court seems like peanuts compared to my data being "out there" permanently. This is just a general observation--I'm not impugning Legalist with this statement at all. I guess it may seem like small potatoes weighed against the risks, it's not like everyone impacted by this could get appropriate remuneration for the potential lifelong BS caused by this.

k3oni 9y ago
What do you think will come out of the class-action lawsuits and how much do you think people will get per capita after the lawyers are paid? I have a feeling that in small courts you can at least get more than that. PA for example has a max of $12k claim amount.
- DeathRabbit 9y ago
  Oh, yes, totally agree that the class action suits will result in a sweet $15 check or something. I guess my poorly phrased lament was just in reflection that even the max payout in small claims doesn't seem like a great result given that this stuff is out there permanently. I read some stats that indicated an average of 330 hours for a person to work through fraud on their credit reports or otherwise clean up an ID theft event.
  - whataretensors 9y ago
    Having been a victim of identity theft I'd say that's accurate, if not low. It took me 10 years to clean up the whole thing(and I'm still worried about random letters).
  - k3oni 9y ago
    The other way to deal with this would be to not do anything right now and exclude yourself form the class action. In case something would be to happen you have the option to sue for full face value as long as it can be proven that this hack is related or the cause, but again that is a big if. And i'm not a lawyer just thinking out loud.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deskamess 9y ago

Any options for previous US residents who are now out of the country? BTW, what are you giving up when you sue Equifax and win? Does winning absolve Equifax of any liability or need to help you in case of future identity theft?

devy 9y ago

I am a Equifax data leak victim. How do I know Legalist is dependable and trustworthy so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time? And small claim court filling fee is only less than $100 (in my state it's $35, appeal is $250 refundable). And maximum claim amount in small claim court in my state is $3000. Is it worthy for me to trust another 3rd party with my sensitive information to get at most 3k (in reality it will be much less and there is also the fee from Legalist). I personally don't think this is a useful service AT ALL.

xie_alan 9y ago
Also a victim. I personally would rather get a 4-figure settlement in small claims court instead of a $5 check in five years from a class action. IANAL, but it doesn't look like Legalist is handling any information that you wouldn't be making publicly available in a court filing were you to do this yourself. As someone who doesn't have the time or diligence to do all this myself, I actually find this pretty useful.
smsm42 9y ago
> so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time? No problem. If that happens, Legalist would be happy to finance you suing them in a small claims court!

JshWright 9y ago

So, "ambulance chasing" meets "webscale"?

xie_alan 9y ago
Better call Saul!
- failrate 9y ago
  Saul as a service
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    JaaS
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Saul?
  - j_s 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Call_Saul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Call_Saul

MaymayMaster 9y ago

>Making users enroll on https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/ https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/ Piss off.

spraak 9y ago

From what I understand, there isn't any financial risk for someone using this? I.e. since their payment is contingent on you winning?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jdshaf 9y ago

The website says: "File suit and repay Legalist only if your case is successful." Do I owe legalist their fee if I win, but am unable to collect from Equifax?

evashang 9y ago
Legalist is repaid only in the event you recover money directly!

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

I thought about this, but how do you prove damages? Judges don't like you wasting their time with theoretical losses. The best I could come up with is the cost of credit monitoring ($20 a month) for life. Does anyone have recommendations for quantifying the damages? Something the judge won't toss out? Also why does this make us put in the court where we will file? Doesn't it need to be where Equifax is located, and won't it be the same for everyone?

takeda 9y ago
And monitoring doesn't prevent issues from happening if something happens it apparently takes 330 hours on average to fix it.
VectorLock 9y ago
I think at the very least the cost of having to do a credit freeze. That really ticks me off the most about this. These guys collect you information without your explicit permission then when one of them fucks up and that data gets you YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM TO STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING.
etjossem 9y ago
I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice backed by any level of expertise in the law. But if I had to write a complaint for small claims right now, here's what I'd bring up: -- FCRA § 604. states that "any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other", and lists allowable reasons to dispense a credit report. FCRA § 607. requires compliance, stating that an agency must "limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604." FCRA § 616. imposes civil liability for willful noncompliance at a minimum of $1000, even if that is greater than actual damages already sustained. (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ..<snip>.. (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; ..<snip>.. (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; -- This suggests to me that you will be able to seek "actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater", plus any punitive damages the court awards (I do not believe this is generally done in small claims). You would need to demonstrate that the failure to safeguard your information was willful.

GavinB 9y ago

I submitted my data but I'm getting an "unknown request" on the URL https://www.legalist.com/equifax-sent/ https://www.legalist.com/equifax-sent/ Also, it's unclear what court you're supposed to file in. I did some research and, at least in New York, you're supposed to file a claim where the defendant does business. I put my local county small claims court in (New York County Civil Court), but I'm not sure if that was right. Maybe because Equifax is such a big company doing business everywhere I can file in my local court? Otherwise it looks like I would need to file in Atlanta, where their headquarters is.

ABCLAW 9y ago

For individuals considering this, note that champerty arrangements are illegal in certain jurisdictions. If you get hit for that, you're on the hook, not them. That's explicit in their ToS. Have fun, kiddos.

xie_alan 9y ago
IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? I don't think there's any remotely recent precedent for state-level champerty statutes (the few that still exist) being enforced in a commercial litigation context, and I think this situation is one in which the plaintiffs (Equifax data breach victims) are already planning to file suit, thus not rising to the level of "champerty and maintenance" being applied to frivolous litigation that such statutes aim to prevent.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  >IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? Nope. Third party lending as a broad policy trend has certainly opened up over time, but some states still have the restriction, others have reformed it, others call it a different thing and some have abolished it. Is the risk substantial in your specific case? Maybe not. Maybe it is. Just know there's a risk there and you're the one eating it.

basseq 9y ago

The website makes no mention of the "complaint" promised in the OP. Is this just litigation finance, or litigation support as well?

neekb 9y ago

Pretty interesting article discussing the ability to achieve "standing" in court related to a data breach that doesn't immediately result in a loss: https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2016/novemberdecember/section-review-health-law-2 https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2016/no...

civilian 9y ago

How much is legalist recommending we take Equifax to small claims court for? $500? 1k?

smsm42 9y ago

AFAIK small claims court are pretty informal, and most do not allow one to be represented (as opposed to advised, which is allowed) by a lawyer. So I imagine you come to the court, and the judge asks you "OK, tell me why you are suing Equifax", and you, being true to the promise to tell the truth and fearing perjury, answer "I've read an ad from a law firm which promised me that I can sue them for free and get money from it, so that's the reason I am here in the court today - just trying to grab some money from this opportunity". I would be surprised if the judge would be overly sympathetic. [1] And since judges probably have seen pretty much everything under the sun, they probably would get the gist of it even if you don't answer in these exact words. And I am not sure judges would also be sympathetic to "auto-lawsuit" setups where you are allowed t generate lawsuit by filling a form without anybody actually ensuring there's a case. And Legalist seems to be advertising "automatic" support - i.e. without even considering if you actually have the case or not. It's basically automatic lawsuit generator. I don't think it'd make judges happy. Lawsuit financing may be a great idea - I actually like this approach - but turning it into opportunistic money-grabbing mill is probably makes more harm than good. [1] If you don't believe people really answer like that, check this out: https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/08/18/food-court-follies-fraud-suits-fall-apart-after-plaintiffs-candid-admissions-during-discovery/ https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/08/18/food-court-follies-frau...

xie_alan 9y ago
That's for sure why people participate in class-action lawsuits against big companies like Red Bull, but isn't the whole point that people have had their privacy violated? I can't see a plaintiff showing up to court and not saying something along the lines of "Equifax lost my data and I want to be compensated." Maybe Plaintiff John Doe isn't going to be able to exhaustively demonstrate quantifiable material damages, but maybe the court hands out a default judgment. The real opportunistic money-grabbers here are Equifax...they took their own data breach, which is basically historically unprecedented in its scale, and used it as a way to shill one of their own credit score monitoring products. That, IMO, is despicable. If it's easier to sue these guys for their negligence, so be it.
- smsm42 9y ago

radvocate 9y ago

This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple. Do you want to file a claim now for a few hundred dollars in SC court, or wait until you actually have real damages to cover? If you file and win now, you're out of luck with your future damages.

xie_alan 9y ago
My knowledge of identity theft is admittedly limited to TV documentaries...but if your identity is stolen five years from now and the fraudsters rack up thousands of dollars in loans and bills under your name, is there a way for you to link that crime to the Equifax hack? I could see a lawyer making the very shaky argument that John Doe could have had their personal information hacked elsewhere and that there's no evidence connecting the thieves to Equifax.

jlgaddis 9y ago

Off-topic (but somewhat related, perhaps?) question for any of you who and submitted the form (no cheating, please!): What type of SSL certificate -- DV or EV -- did the Legalist web site have, if any? I'm just interested in {whether|how many of} you bothered to look before submitting your information. (I'm asking because I was reminded of a recent HN discussion about DV/EV certificates and this seemed as good of a "test case" as any.)

xie_alan 9y ago
I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy. I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare. I might be mistaken, but aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities?
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  > I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy. Sure. It was a discussion [0] of an article by Troy Hunt entitled "On the Perceived Value of EV Certs, Commercial CAs, Phishing and Let's Encrypt" [1]. (There have been a few other recent discussions [2,3] that also mentioned EV that you might be interested in.) > I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare. That seems to be a pretty common setup (for "easy"), as well as static sites on AWS S3, etc. Most of my sites run WordPress on my own (physical) servers so I can't personally comment on those methods. > ...aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities? That seems to be the popular opinion (at least here on HN), though I can understand the desire to use EV over DV in certain situations. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805233 [1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/on-the-perceived-value-ev-certs-cas-phishing-lets-encrypt/ https://www.troyhunt.com/on-the-perceived-value-ev-certs-cas... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14749565 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14749565 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15221119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15221119

radvocate 9y ago

This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple - if you sue in SC court and win $100, it extinguishes your ability to sue again for new damages. And let's face it, our real damages aren't apparent yet. Also, SC is probably your worst option, as far as ROI goes. If you want a more strategic sense of your legal options, check out: http://myradvocate.com/new-blog/2017/9/10/5vpvo8j70gnergoci432n4grj2017p http://myradvocate.com/new-blog/2017/9/10/5vpvo8j70gnergoci4...