7 ms·

If I recall correctly, US Congress passed a resolution [1] shortly after the Equifax breaches became public that essentially restricted the capabilities of peop

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
      This is the same play used in the early aughts with at&t. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

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
    This is the same play used in the early aughts with at&t. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A