4 ms·

Isn't there a class-action lawsuit, can't those 143M people in theory get in on that?

leggomylibro 9y ago
If most of the adult population of an entire country is affected by something, is a class-action lawsuit really the best way to deal with that? What about a Federal program?
- bb88 9y ago
  The CFPB is a Federal program. It's the thing which is supposed to keep companies from doing this.
bobwaycott 9y ago
I believe Equifax is currently facing 240 state and class-action suits. Still doesn’t seem the appropriate way to handle an entire nation being affected by their failure.
- yourapostasy 9y ago
  Unless those actions pool resources and forces, Equifax stands a good chance of defeating most of them in detail. String most along, cherry-pick the most likely to prevail against (with a combination of lobbying, legislation, politicking, marketing, and legal maneuvers), win or stalemate those, then work their way down the list with those precedents in their negotiating back pocket.
mixedmath 9y ago
If I recall correctly, US Congress passed a resolution [1] shortly after the Equifax breaches became public that essentially restricted the capabilities of people to sue Equifax [2]. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/111/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-res... [2]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/congress-votes-to-disallow-consumers-from-suing-equifax-and-other-companies-with-arbitration-agreements/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/congress-votes-to-disallow...
- tonyztan 9y ago
  I believe the resolution only applied to those who had signed arbitration agreements with Equifax. Nonetheless, it is a bad resolution for consumers.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Forgive me for being uninformed, but why is what is basically retroactive immunity not a violation of ex post facto laws?
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    I believe the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminalization of behavior that was previously lawful. That is, it would not apply to civil matters of any sort, and it also would not apply where immunity is effectively conferred—only where prior actions are made illegal. Upon quick searching, it looks like scholars have debated the civil/criminal point: https://www.quora.com/Does-ex-post-facto-apply-to-civil-and-criminal-law https://www.quora.com/Does-ex-post-facto-apply-to-civil-and-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    You can't be convicted for something that was legal when you did it but was made illegal afterwards, so retroactive prohibitions don't apply. However, it's not symmetric - lifting prohibitions can be done retroactively, to not prosecute people for things they did back when it was still prohibited. Unfair, arbitrary prosecution may violate someones rights, but unfair, arbitrary immunity can not - there's no right to get someone else punished.
    - philipodonnell 9y ago
      Even when seeking restitution?
      - vageli 9y ago

If most of the adult population of an entire country is affected by something, is a class-action lawsuit really the best way to deal with that? What about a Federal program?

bb88 9y ago
The CFPB is a Federal program. It's the thing which is supposed to keep companies from doing this.

bobwaycott 9y ago

I believe Equifax is currently facing 240 state and class-action suits. Still doesn’t seem the appropriate way to handle an entire nation being affected by their failure.

yourapostasy 9y ago
Unless those actions pool resources and forces, Equifax stands a good chance of defeating most of them in detail. String most along, cherry-pick the most likely to prevail against (with a combination of lobbying, legislation, politicking, marketing, and legal maneuvers), win or stalemate those, then work their way down the list with those precedents in their negotiating back pocket.

mixedmath 9y ago

If I recall correctly, US Congress passed a resolution [1] shortly after the Equifax breaches became public that essentially restricted the capabilities of people to sue Equifax [2]. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/111/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-res... [2]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/congress-votes-to-disallow-consumers-from-suing-equifax-and-other-companies-with-arbitration-agreements/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/congress-votes-to-disallow...

tonyztan 9y ago
I believe the resolution only applied to those who had signed arbitration agreements with Equifax. Nonetheless, it is a bad resolution for consumers.
colejohnson66 9y ago
Forgive me for being uninformed, but why is what is basically retroactive immunity not a violation of ex post facto laws?
- gnicholas 9y ago
  I believe the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminalization of behavior that was previously lawful. That is, it would not apply to civil matters of any sort, and it also would not apply where immunity is effectively conferred—only where prior actions are made illegal. Upon quick searching, it looks like scholars have debated the civil/criminal point: https://www.quora.com/Does-ex-post-facto-apply-to-civil-and-criminal-law https://www.quora.com/Does-ex-post-facto-apply-to-civil-and-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
- PeterisP 9y ago
  You can't be convicted for something that was legal when you did it but was made illegal afterwards, so retroactive prohibitions don't apply. However, it's not symmetric - lifting prohibitions can be done retroactively, to not prosecute people for things they did back when it was still prohibited. Unfair, arbitrary prosecution may violate someones rights, but unfair, arbitrary immunity can not - there's no right to get someone else punished.
  - philipodonnell 9y ago
    Even when seeking restitution?
    - vageli 9y ago