While I agree that this factor is stupid -- either it wasn't well-thought or it was intended to be a way to avoid fairly compensating victims, whatever. That s

While I agree that this factor is stupid -- either it wasn't well-thought or it was intended to be a way to avoid fairly compensating victims, whatever. That said, they are paying a total of about $700M, in fees and compensation and so. The actual amount is probably going to be less -- if every single person took the $125, then the $31M for credit monitoring wouldn't be used at all. But for comparison, in Q2 2019, Equifax report about $900M in revenue. So they lost a full quarter of profit out of this. Is that fair? Does that actually give sufficient incentive to keep this from happening again, by Equifax, or by TransUnion/Experian? I don't know. I can say I'm not happy about this, the golden parachutes are bullshit, how they sat on the hack and then tried to scapegoat an engineer over it is infuriating, but I'm sure they are scrambling to lock down their security now, if not before, and I can't realistically see the current CEO letting something like this happen again. Although, as they say, lightning never strikes the same place twice -- they'll lock down these avenues, but what are they going to miss? Can we actually trust them not to leave other vulnerabilities? We don't really have a choice, do we? I can't opt out of their "service."