9 ms·

Don't know if anyone posted this before, but if you scroll down to #25 here: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com

by ScoJoh 7y ago

Don't know if anyone posted this before, but if you scroll down to #25 here: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq You can send a letter to the Courts and let them know why you do or don't think this is a sufficient and decent settlement. Share it, let's get people writing in, because this lets Equifax keep really everything and in the end little real effect from their failure to take care of the information they were entrusted with.

camhenlin 7y ago
Thanks for posting this. My wife and I already have credit monitoring so we’ve been very frustrated that it seems like Equifax will be weaseling out of paying us our $125 each. We’ll be sending a couple of letters today. Personally I’d like to see the courts rethink the settlement and force the $125 payout to everyone who requested it.
- thedanbob 7y ago
  I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. But this settlement doesn't seem to be about actually punishing Equifax at all or fairly recompensing those affected.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's an option: "You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as it is."
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Denying the settlement leaves open the possibility of a larger one. The court just can't order the subsequent negotiation have a specific result.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        Which is not what the parent comment was going for. It said, "I'd like to see the courts force Equifax [...]".
        prophesi 7y ago
        Now it's just semantics. Denying the current settlement would inevitably result in a larger settlement, unless everyone appealing to the courts is saying that the $125 repayment is too much.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        How is this just semantics? If they have to do things over, they might just reach a different settlement than paying individual people $X. Or heck, there's always a chance they won't agree and will have to battle it out in court. Or maybe something else that I can't think of. It might be likely that they'd come up with a better payment, but it seems far inevitable to me.
        doingmyting 7y ago
        I think that's the point of saying "I'd like to see ...". It's more of a wish or hope
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    This is a very, very imperfect method of figuring out the key question here ("Would Equifax just file for bankruptcy?"), but their enterprise value is ~$20B, and paying out $125 per person would cost over $18B, so it seems pretty clear you'd need to reduce the per person payout. It would take more work than I can put in right now to decide what it should be, but finger in the wind halving it seems like the right starting point.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate. They not only failed to maintain the security of the data, they also provided no identity theft protection to the public (unless you asked for it), and as a company appeared to have no plan for this event. Given that they were entrusted with the identity data for basically all Americans, that is inexcusable.
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        Sorry, should have been more clear: I wasn't commenting on whether or not bankruptcy is fair to Equifax or not, I was meant "Would Equifax avoid paying the money out via bankruptcy protections (from which companies can actually emerge from in better position)?" I assumed the OP cared primarily about receiving the settlement.
      - ptero 7y ago
        > Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate. Hmm... Would not they just file for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, restructure their debts (i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off), then emerge in a better shape than they were?
        mffnbs 7y ago
        (i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off) What does that mean? As far as I know, you can't just announce that you're "writing off" debts and have them magically disappear.
        7y ago
- knicholes 7y ago
  Is it just me who thinks that $125 would hardly cover the cost of dealing with a stolen identity?
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    You could file for additional compensation based on documented damages (time, cost, etc). I'm not sure if that came from a separate settlement or not (doubtful) or if the documentation requirements are even more onerous (likely), but there was definitely an option to do this.
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      Depending on how much you asked I suspect the documentation required would scale but at a certain threshold they'd probably just pay an individual $300 with minimal documentation. But who knows, they've been pretty craven and uncaring throughout. CRAs are not very good companies, honestly.
  - qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
    As Martin said in the Simpsons, “as a bundle we form a mighty faggot.”
degenerate 7y ago
To be clear, can anyone assumedly become a "Settlement Class Member" simply by being an American citizen or having an SSN (and thus being affected by the breach?) edit: Thanks for replies; the answer is "no". You can check if you were affected on the settlement homepage under "I would like to..." I was not affected by the breach, so a letter from me would not matter.
- hotdogs 7y ago
  I think not quite everyone was affected, it was supposedly 147M people. You can check if your information was included in the breach on the settlement site.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Small correction: you don't need to be an American "citizen" to be affected; it suffices to have credit history in the US (e.g. permanent residents, etc).
emmp 7y ago
Has anyone publicly done the work to cite law/precedent to object to the fairness here? Certainly I can provide my own personal reasons, but citing law and previous settlements would bolster the case (and this specifically asks for it too)
jxramos 7y ago
You'll be asked what may be a bunch of superficially dismissing questions. They're in fact optional... """ Option 1, Credit Monitoring: Free Service or Cash Payment Option 2, Cash Payment: I want a cash payment of up to $125. I certify that I have credit monitoring and will have it for at least 6 months from today. Current Credit Monitoring Service: Self Cash Payment: Time Spent No spent time Cash Payment: Money You Lost or Spent No money lost or spent Supporting Documents No documents selected How Would You Like to Receive Your Cash Payment Check """
Bhilai 7y ago
> To be considered by the Court, your objection letter must be filed electronically with the Court by 11/19/2019 Do you know how to file the objection electronically ?
mehrdadn 7y ago
I mentioned this myself earlier, but later I noticed 2 huge caveats I hadn't noticed before: 1. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object 2. Your objection letter must include: A statement as to whether you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing This means you cannot opt out and also object, and you also need to spend $$$ either traveling to the court or finding a lawyer to appear for you. Not sure how many people are willing to do that.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  The article mentions this, but the court will read all the objections. In reality, this means that a clerk will probably be tasked with reading and summarizing them for the judge, and the judge might read some of the most compelling or a selection of them. While it's probably less impactful than showing up, you can definitely object and exert some influence on the judge's decision.

by ScoJoh 7y ago

camhenlin 7y ago

Thanks for posting this. My wife and I already have credit monitoring so we’ve been very frustrated that it seems like Equifax will be weaseling out of paying us our $125 each. We’ll be sending a couple of letters today. Personally I’d like to see the courts rethink the settlement and force the $125 payout to everyone who requested it.

thedanbob 7y ago
I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. But this settlement doesn't seem to be about actually punishing Equifax at all or fairly recompensing those affected.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > I'd like to see the courts force Equifax to pay $X to everyone whose information they leaked, whether they request it or not. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's an option: "You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement as it is."
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Denying the settlement leaves open the possibility of a larger one. The court just can't order the subsequent negotiation have a specific result.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Which is not what the parent comment was going for. It said, "I'd like to see the courts force Equifax [...]".
      - prophesi 7y ago
        Now it's just semantics. Denying the current settlement would inevitably result in a larger settlement, unless everyone appealing to the courts is saying that the $125 repayment is too much.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        How is this just semantics? If they have to do things over, they might just reach a different settlement than paying individual people $X. Or heck, there's always a chance they won't agree and will have to battle it out in court. Or maybe something else that I can't think of. It might be likely that they'd come up with a better payment, but it seems far inevitable to me.
        doingmyting 7y ago
        I think that's the point of saying "I'd like to see ...". It's more of a wish or hope
- the_watcher 7y ago
  This is a very, very imperfect method of figuring out the key question here ("Would Equifax just file for bankruptcy?"), but their enterprise value is ~$20B, and paying out $125 per person would cost over $18B, so it seems pretty clear you'd need to reduce the per person payout. It would take more work than I can put in right now to decide what it should be, but finger in the wind halving it seems like the right starting point.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate. They not only failed to maintain the security of the data, they also provided no identity theft protection to the public (unless you asked for it), and as a company appeared to have no plan for this event. Given that they were entrusted with the identity data for basically all Americans, that is inexcusable.
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      Sorry, should have been more clear: I wasn't commenting on whether or not bankruptcy is fair to Equifax or not, I was meant "Would Equifax avoid paying the money out via bankruptcy protections (from which companies can actually emerge from in better position)?" I assumed the OP cared primarily about receiving the settlement.
    - ptero 7y ago
      > Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate. Hmm... Would not they just file for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, restructure their debts (i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off), then emerge in a better shape than they were?
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        (i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off) What does that mean? As far as I know, you can't just announce that you're "writing off" debts and have them magically disappear.
        7y ago
knicholes 7y ago
Is it just me who thinks that $125 would hardly cover the cost of dealing with a stolen identity?
- the_watcher 7y ago
  You could file for additional compensation based on documented damages (time, cost, etc). I'm not sure if that came from a separate settlement or not (doubtful) or if the documentation requirements are even more onerous (likely), but there was definitely an option to do this.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    Depending on how much you asked I suspect the documentation required would scale but at a certain threshold they'd probably just pay an individual $300 with minimal documentation. But who knows, they've been pretty craven and uncaring throughout. CRAs are not very good companies, honestly.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
  As Martin said in the Simpsons, “as a bundle we form a mighty faggot.”

degenerate 7y ago

To be clear, can anyone assumedly become a "Settlement Class Member" simply by being an American citizen or having an SSN (and thus being affected by the breach?) edit: Thanks for replies; the answer is "no". You can check if you were affected on the settlement homepage under "I would like to..." I was not affected by the breach, so a letter from me would not matter.

hotdogs 7y ago
I think not quite everyone was affected, it was supposedly 147M people. You can check if your information was included in the breach on the settlement site.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
Small correction: you don't need to be an American "citizen" to be affected; it suffices to have credit history in the US (e.g. permanent residents, etc).

emmp 7y ago

Has anyone publicly done the work to cite law/precedent to object to the fairness here? Certainly I can provide my own personal reasons, but citing law and previous settlements would bolster the case (and this specifically asks for it too)

jxramos 7y ago

You'll be asked what may be a bunch of superficially dismissing questions. They're in fact optional... """ Option 1, Credit Monitoring: Free Service or Cash Payment Option 2, Cash Payment: I want a cash payment of up to $125. I certify that I have credit monitoring and will have it for at least 6 months from today. Current Credit Monitoring Service: Self Cash Payment: Time Spent No spent time Cash Payment: Money You Lost or Spent No money lost or spent Supporting Documents No documents selected How Would You Like to Receive Your Cash Payment Check """

Bhilai 7y ago

> To be considered by the Court, your objection letter must be filed electronically with the Court by 11/19/2019 Do you know how to file the objection electronically ?

mehrdadn 7y ago

I mentioned this myself earlier, but later I noticed 2 huge caveats I hadn't noticed before: 1. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object 2. Your objection letter must include: A statement as to whether you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing This means you cannot opt out and also object, and you also need to spend $$$ either traveling to the court or finding a lawyer to appear for you. Not sure how many people are willing to do that.

the_watcher 7y ago
The article mentions this, but the court will read all the objections. In reality, this means that a clerk will probably be tasked with reading and summarizing them for the judge, and the judge might read some of the most compelling or a selection of them. While it's probably less impactful than showing up, you can definitely object and exert some influence on the judge's decision.