4 ms·

The title of this post (which, admittedly, was taken from the NYTimes) isn't really correct. The terms of the settlement have been set. Equifax's financial out

by harryh 7y ago

The title of this post (which, admittedly, was taken from the NYTimes) isn't really correct. The terms of the settlement have been set. Equifax's financial outlay is fixed. All of the post settlement divvying up of the funds is being administered by the government bodies who negotiated the settlement, not Equifax. Equifax's desires about how the money gets divvied up at this point are irrelevant.

aloknnikhil 7y ago
You're right. The title is not very accurate. The text from the Equifax Settlement Administrator > Your Equifax Claim: You Must Act by October 15, 2019 or Your Claim for Alternative Compensation Will Be Denied. The amount you receive in connection with your alternative compensation claim may be significantly reduced depending on how many valid claims are ultimately submitted by other class members for this relief. Based on the number of potentially valid claims that have been submitted to date, payments of these benefits likely will be substantially lowered and will be distributed on a proportional basis if the settlement becomes final. Depending on the number of valid claims that are filed, the amount you receive for alternative compensation may be a small percentage of your initial claim. That text was just them fear mongering. Even the FTC urged to opt for the credit monitoring instead through more fear inducing statements. > You can still choose the cash option on the claim form, but you will be disappointed with the amount you receive and you won’t get the free credit monitoring. > https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/equifax-data-breach-settlement https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/eq... But, if this is how the whole process is "administered", then I guess you might as well not have any hopes of seeing the compensation. EDIT: Corrected to identify the authority of the email correctly.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 7y ago
  Equifax didn't send you that email. If you read further down in the e-mail it even says "This email is from the Court-appointed settlement administrator, not Equifax."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - aloknnikhil 7y ago
    Fair enough. That just makes the whole thing even worse. There's basically no hope in receiving the compensation anymore.
    - harryh 7y ago
      The vast majority of the settlement is designated for people who experience actual harm (identity theft of some kind basically) from the breach. It's perfectly reasonable that people who's lives haven't been negatively impacted in any real way don't receive anything more than a token payment.
      - aloknnikhil 7y ago
        The alternative compensations was set at $31 million. And the cash compensations per person caps out at $20,000. If we start with this cap, the settlement was supposed to benefit only 1,550 individuals out of the 148 million records that were breached. Even if you assume just $125 per person, that number only benefits 248,000. So the number of people benefiting from this range between 1,550 and 248,000, if the original settlement claims were to be upheld. Instead, every claimant is now being asked to get credit monitoring from the same company that couldn't secure the records. To be fair, the FTC does suggest getting an alternative from Experian, but only in the FAQ.
        harryh 7y ago
        The 31 million is for the people that haven't experienced any identity theft. This is the money being split up by all the people making $125 claims. The total pool to pay out claims to consumer is 425 million. Subtracting the 31M that leaves 394 million for people who experience real harm. The $20,000 cap per person is for people drawing money from this pool.
        7y ago
lvh 7y ago
Mostly agreed. My understanding is the divvying up is not a govt entity, and the judge still has to approve the settlement, which isn’t a foregone conclusion, so it’s not entirely true that Equifax is out of the woods. Also, the reputational damage hits them even if they’re not the proximate actor here.
- harryh 7y ago
  I, for one, think it's kind of unfair that equifax is being blamed for the contents of communications it had no hand in crafting. Especially when the major organizations like the NYTimes are so unclear in their headline writing about what is actually going on.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I guess we disagree both on that this article was misleading and that Equifax doesn't deserve the blame. Equifax had a lot of say in how this settlement played out. My guess is their legal team is trying to reduce the number of cash claimants so they don't get the bad press when $.02 checks get mailed out--or there's some other benefit in adding more steps to this silly process. Their legal team is representing their interests. Drawing attention reduces the likelihood this happens in future settlements. Focusing it on Equifax makes the story way more clear. Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different.
    - harryh 7y ago
      Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different. I agree those two aren't appreciably different. They are both bad if the writer doesn't make it clear that the team (no matter the name) isn't in the employ or under the influence of equifax in any way.
      - pfranz 7y ago
jfengel 7y ago
I was a little confused by that. My best guess is that they're hoping that they can shuffle enough people off onto credit monitoring that the hundred million people getting a nickel apiece don't demand they re-open their settlement? That seems unlikely. Perhaps they're hoping that some of their new credit monitoring customers will like it so much that they'll pay for the service after the term expires?

by harryh 7y ago

aloknnikhil 7y ago

You're right. The title is not very accurate. The text from the Equifax Settlement Administrator > Your Equifax Claim: You Must Act by October 15, 2019 or Your Claim for Alternative Compensation Will Be Denied. The amount you receive in connection with your alternative compensation claim may be significantly reduced depending on how many valid claims are ultimately submitted by other class members for this relief. Based on the number of potentially valid claims that have been submitted to date, payments of these benefits likely will be substantially lowered and will be distributed on a proportional basis if the settlement becomes final. Depending on the number of valid claims that are filed, the amount you receive for alternative compensation may be a small percentage of your initial claim. That text was just them fear mongering. Even the FTC urged to opt for the credit monitoring instead through more fear inducing statements. > You can still choose the cash option on the claim form, but you will be disappointed with the amount you receive and you won’t get the free credit monitoring. > https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/equifax-data-breach-settlement https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/eq... But, if this is how the whole process is "administered", then I guess you might as well not have any hopes of seeing the compensation. EDIT: Corrected to identify the authority of the email correctly.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
harryh 7y ago
Equifax didn't send you that email. If you read further down in the e-mail it even says "This email is from the Court-appointed settlement administrator, not Equifax."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- aloknnikhil 7y ago
  Fair enough. That just makes the whole thing even worse. There's basically no hope in receiving the compensation anymore.
  - harryh 7y ago
    The vast majority of the settlement is designated for people who experience actual harm (identity theft of some kind basically) from the breach. It's perfectly reasonable that people who's lives haven't been negatively impacted in any real way don't receive anything more than a token payment.
    - aloknnikhil 7y ago
      The alternative compensations was set at $31 million. And the cash compensations per person caps out at $20,000. If we start with this cap, the settlement was supposed to benefit only 1,550 individuals out of the 148 million records that were breached. Even if you assume just $125 per person, that number only benefits 248,000. So the number of people benefiting from this range between 1,550 and 248,000, if the original settlement claims were to be upheld. Instead, every claimant is now being asked to get credit monitoring from the same company that couldn't secure the records. To be fair, the FTC does suggest getting an alternative from Experian, but only in the FAQ.
      - harryh 7y ago
        The 31 million is for the people that haven't experienced any identity theft. This is the money being split up by all the people making $125 claims. The total pool to pay out claims to consumer is 425 million. Subtracting the 31M that leaves 394 million for people who experience real harm. The $20,000 cap per person is for people drawing money from this pool.
        7y ago

lvh 7y ago

Mostly agreed. My understanding is the divvying up is not a govt entity, and the judge still has to approve the settlement, which isn’t a foregone conclusion, so it’s not entirely true that Equifax is out of the woods. Also, the reputational damage hits them even if they’re not the proximate actor here.

harryh 7y ago
I, for one, think it's kind of unfair that equifax is being blamed for the contents of communications it had no hand in crafting. Especially when the major organizations like the NYTimes are so unclear in their headline writing about what is actually going on.
- pfranz 7y ago
  I guess we disagree both on that this article was misleading and that Equifax doesn't deserve the blame. Equifax had a lot of say in how this settlement played out. My guess is their legal team is trying to reduce the number of cash claimants so they don't get the bad press when $.02 checks get mailed out--or there's some other benefit in adding more steps to this silly process. Their legal team is representing their interests. Drawing attention reduces the likelihood this happens in future settlements. Focusing it on Equifax makes the story way more clear. Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different. I agree those two aren't appreciably different. They are both bad if the writer doesn't make it clear that the team (no matter the name) isn't in the employ or under the influence of equifax in any way.
    - pfranz 7y ago

jfengel 7y ago

I was a little confused by that. My best guess is that they're hoping that they can shuffle enough people off onto credit monitoring that the hundred million people getting a nickel apiece don't demand they re-open their settlement? That seems unlikely. Perhaps they're hoping that some of their new credit monitoring customers will like it so much that they'll pay for the service after the term expires?