3 ms·

This story is gaining a lot of traction, and publications like Inc are picking up on it as a David-vs-Goliath tale. Some of them link to Christian Haigh's blog

This story is gaining a lot of traction, and publications like Inc are picking up on it as a David-vs-Goliath tale. Some of them link to Christian Haigh's blog posts (https://blog.legalist.com/i-won-8-000-from-equifax-in-small-claims-court-heres-how-you-can-too-f0ce6925c079 https://blog.legalist.com/i-won-8-000-from-equifax-in-small-...). What seems to get lost in the secondary articles is that Christian Haigh works for Legalist, and the entire article, while I believe it to be true, is an advertisement for his legal services company to help you sue Equifax as well. This isn't David-vs-Goliath, this is someone well-versed in the law with the resource of a company behind him, taking on Equifax armed with knowledge and resources that the average consumer does not have. It may be possible to repeat his success on your own, but it's certainly not likely. He was prepared to respond to common legal tactics that Equifax's lawyer would easily defeat a normal plaintiff with. And again, this is all an advertisement for his legal services company, so I've got a bag of salt we can all share.

rictic 9y ago
To take the same information and present it in a different way: this legal services company is able to win a lawsuit that an unassisted or naive litigant would lose. They make some money, the person who was harmed by Equifax gets some money, and Equifax is disincentivized to mishandle people's personal information. This is good, isn't it?
- caymanjim 9y ago
  Equifax may be terrible, punishing them may be good, this may be a good way to punish them. One might debate whether small claims court is the right venue, what the role of the government is, whether this is a civil or criminal matter, and more generally what the impact of litigation is. None of this is to say that I disagree. This is a feel-good story where the little man gets to stick it to the Big Evil Corporation. I just think it's disingenuous to present it as a story of what one man can do in the face of injustice, and then have a publication like Inc. repeat the story while leaving out important details about the plaintiff's qualifications and incentive.
Mandatum 9y ago
This is the type of advertisement I'm OK with. Haigh didn't hide the fact he worked for Legalist, and he provided pretty much a step-by-step guide from the blog post on how to pursue a claim against Equifax. Net positive. Good for him, good for claimants.
DenisM 9y ago
The "Equifax's lawyer" is not allowed in the small claims court, it's mano a mano
- caymanjim 9y ago
  There's a followup article; Equifax appealed, and lawyers were allowed during the appeal: https://blog.legalist.com/i-fought-equifaxs-lawyer-in-court-and-won-here-s-how-a16930c53af3 https://blog.legalist.com/i-fought-equifaxs-lawyer-in-court-....
caf 9y ago
Haigh's association with Legalist is mentioned in the second paragraph of this article, and they go on to talk about them funding other Equifax litigants, so I don't think that point has been lost at all. (Also, I believe Legalist aren't funding Equifax litigants anymore)
- caymanjim 9y ago
  My bad; I admit I missed that on first read. I was reacting more to prior discussions I'd had and simply seeing the Inc reference pushed me to comment.

rictic 9y ago

To take the same information and present it in a different way: this legal services company is able to win a lawsuit that an unassisted or naive litigant would lose. They make some money, the person who was harmed by Equifax gets some money, and Equifax is disincentivized to mishandle people's personal information. This is good, isn't it?

caymanjim 9y ago
Equifax may be terrible, punishing them may be good, this may be a good way to punish them. One might debate whether small claims court is the right venue, what the role of the government is, whether this is a civil or criminal matter, and more generally what the impact of litigation is. None of this is to say that I disagree. This is a feel-good story where the little man gets to stick it to the Big Evil Corporation. I just think it's disingenuous to present it as a story of what one man can do in the face of injustice, and then have a publication like Inc. repeat the story while leaving out important details about the plaintiff's qualifications and incentive.

Mandatum 9y ago

This is the type of advertisement I'm OK with. Haigh didn't hide the fact he worked for Legalist, and he provided pretty much a step-by-step guide from the blog post on how to pursue a claim against Equifax. Net positive. Good for him, good for claimants.

DenisM 9y ago

The "Equifax's lawyer" is not allowed in the small claims court, it's mano a mano

caymanjim 9y ago
There's a followup article; Equifax appealed, and lawyers were allowed during the appeal: https://blog.legalist.com/i-fought-equifaxs-lawyer-in-court-and-won-here-s-how-a16930c53af3 https://blog.legalist.com/i-fought-equifaxs-lawyer-in-court-....

caf 9y ago

Haigh's association with Legalist is mentioned in the second paragraph of this article, and they go on to talk about them funding other Equifax litigants, so I don't think that point has been lost at all. (Also, I believe Legalist aren't funding Equifax litigants anymore)

caymanjim 9y ago
My bad; I admit I missed that on first read. I was reacting more to prior discussions I'd had and simply seeing the Inc reference pushed me to comment.