4 ms·

Do it anyway, but worth mentioning that the maximum penalty is _not_ $700M, but $31M. If more than 250k(ish) people sign up, the payout per-person goes down. [1

Do it anyway, but worth mentioning that the maximum penalty is _not_ $700M, but $31M. If more than 250k(ish) people sign up, the payout per-person goes down. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/rufo/status/1154872589241802753 https://twitter.com/rufo/status/1154872589241802753

Someone1234 7y ago
A lot of the $700M settlement is being used for Equifax to pay itself money for monitoring. They will be giving away their "ID Patrol" product ($16.95/month) for four years, and charging the fund $813/each. Essentially the left hand is going to pay the right hand and it is considered a "fine."
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Why is that legal?
  - __s 7y ago
    Because software is handled with leaky metaphors Imagine a defective physical product went out. Then the company sent out repair kits. Those kits have a real cost to produce/ship/etc It would still seem kind of silly that a company is sending me repair kits instead of money I can choose whether to invest in repairs or not, but so it goes
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      OK, I can see the metaphor now. I would presume the law is a bit better in the physical world as making repair kits directly impacts your balance that you can’t use for anything else, at the least.
    - cco 7y ago
      I think your analogy misses the key point, that is in your analogy the company that sent out the defective physical product is now "fined" by the US government and forced to send out repair kits to those that request them; when a user requests this repair kit the company charges the fund created by the "fine" $813 to send out the repair kit even though the repair kit cost is pennies. It's racketeering.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Your analogy is stillborn. I never ordered the product!
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Because not enough voters have the time/resources/inclination to make it an issue that can vote in the amount of politicians needed to make it right. All the higher ups get plausible deniability and the headlines in the news, and nine out of ten people’s eyes will glaze over by the time you say conflict of interest.
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      No, look - I get the general idea why the world isn’t the way it could have been. I am asking “what is the logical reasoning behind the decision of the judge in this particular scenario”. The situation may be unfair, but why specifically?
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        The difficulty in being able to assign a numerical value to damages is a big problem, as it allows the defense to contest the claims of the plaintiff very easily. At that point, it just becomes a situation of the plaintiff (and their lawyers) figuring out the likelihood of winning the case multiplied by the winnings, and it wouldn't make sense for the plaintiffs to keep arguing for the maximum (or real value) of damages since it's not "provable" and then you're stuck in appeals and whatnot. I wouldn't think the judge in the case can actually do anything in cases where the plaintiffs and defendants reach an accord, or at least the corruption needs to rise to a level higher than what is seen in this case.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        I’ve said this before, but assigning monetary damages is easy: poll Equifax’s attorneys (and maybe their execs) about how much it would take for them to be willing to release their entire Equifax file into the public record. Then, actually do it — introduce their entire credit files into the case record. Take the average amount from the poll, multiply by the number of people affected, and there’s your number.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    It's actually pretty close to racketeering because they're selling a solution to a problem they created.
- skybrian 7y ago
  It's still an expense with no offsetting revenue. (It probably doesn't actually cost them anywhere near $813 to provide, though.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
dmh2000 7y ago
yes chances of getting more than a few bucks are slim. $125 is the max payout. if everyone affected signs up the payout is a few cents. so its somewhere in the middle.

Someone1234 7y ago

A lot of the $700M settlement is being used for Equifax to pay itself money for monitoring. They will be giving away their "ID Patrol" product ($16.95/month) for four years, and charging the fund $813/each. Essentially the left hand is going to pay the right hand and it is considered a "fine."

heavenlyblue 7y ago
Why is that legal?
- __s 7y ago
  Because software is handled with leaky metaphors Imagine a defective physical product went out. Then the company sent out repair kits. Those kits have a real cost to produce/ship/etc It would still seem kind of silly that a company is sending me repair kits instead of money I can choose whether to invest in repairs or not, but so it goes
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    OK, I can see the metaphor now. I would presume the law is a bit better in the physical world as making repair kits directly impacts your balance that you can’t use for anything else, at the least.
  - cco 7y ago
    I think your analogy misses the key point, that is in your analogy the company that sent out the defective physical product is now "fined" by the US government and forced to send out repair kits to those that request them; when a user requests this repair kit the company charges the fund created by the "fine" $813 to send out the repair kit even though the repair kit cost is pennies. It's racketeering.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Your analogy is stillborn. I never ordered the product!
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Because not enough voters have the time/resources/inclination to make it an issue that can vote in the amount of politicians needed to make it right. All the higher ups get plausible deniability and the headlines in the news, and nine out of ten people’s eyes will glaze over by the time you say conflict of interest.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    No, look - I get the general idea why the world isn’t the way it could have been. I am asking “what is the logical reasoning behind the decision of the judge in this particular scenario”. The situation may be unfair, but why specifically?
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      The difficulty in being able to assign a numerical value to damages is a big problem, as it allows the defense to contest the claims of the plaintiff very easily. At that point, it just becomes a situation of the plaintiff (and their lawyers) figuring out the likelihood of winning the case multiplied by the winnings, and it wouldn't make sense for the plaintiffs to keep arguing for the maximum (or real value) of damages since it's not "provable" and then you're stuck in appeals and whatnot. I wouldn't think the judge in the case can actually do anything in cases where the plaintiffs and defendants reach an accord, or at least the corruption needs to rise to a level higher than what is seen in this case.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        I’ve said this before, but assigning monetary damages is easy: poll Equifax’s attorneys (and maybe their execs) about how much it would take for them to be willing to release their entire Equifax file into the public record. Then, actually do it — introduce their entire credit files into the case record. Take the average amount from the poll, multiply by the number of people affected, and there’s your number.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  It's actually pretty close to racketeering because they're selling a solution to a problem they created.
skybrian 7y ago
It's still an expense with no offsetting revenue. (It probably doesn't actually cost them anywhere near $813 to provide, though.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dmh2000 7y ago

yes chances of getting more than a few bucks are slim. $125 is the max payout. if everyone affected signs up the payout is a few cents. so its somewhere in the middle.