3 ms·

Credit monitoring is snake oil. These settlements are universally bullshit and mostly benefit snake oil vendors and not consumers. Also FWIW the damage figures

Credit monitoring is snake oil. These settlements are universally bullshit and mostly benefit snake oil vendors and not consumers. Also FWIW the damage figures are also nonsense, how much can the equifax leak hurt anyone if their data was already for sale on ssndob? Almost all Americans have had their information compromised in hacks they’ve never heard of. Am I wrong?

theshadowknows 7y ago
Class actions are interesting. Basically the lawyer for the class has a dollar value he or she wants before they even send their letter to the company being sued. Then they work towards that. Once they reach that number they don’t really care how the class is reimbursed. And neither do the judges.
- jakewalker 7y ago
  Plaintiffs' class action (mostly securities) lawyer here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
- toss1 7y ago
  Um, NO, that has nothing to do with how it works. Source: my wife is an attny & worked at a top class-action firm for over a decade. Without breaking confidentiality, I still heard all kinds of interesting stories about the mechanics & internals of how the system works - how multiple firms work together, how cases are started, etc., but never anything remotely related to such a "targeted revenue" concept. Of course there's the obvious requirement that any case specify damages at the outset, but even this number can increase or decrease as the case proceeds. A law firm can of course make big money with a big case, but it is a big risk that can take many years to return, and it can fail.
u801e 7y ago
> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  >then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer. It isn’t. The lender enters into a contract with a fraudster and gets fucked. The lender is the victim, not the consumer.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. For the hours of phone calls over several weeks/months/years it takes to clear it all up?
  - magashna 7y ago
    I had trouble getting an apartment because of credit fraud. Was I not a victim in the situation? I had to spend hours on the phone over months getting my credit report cleared. I guess I'm being entitled and poor ole Bank of America was the real victim here.
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      Customers shouldn’t have to be on the phone for days to solve a bank’s problem. Credit fraud (please don’t help banks by calling it identity theft) should be handled like American Express handles credit card fraud. I see a fraudulent charge on my bill, I call up AMEX one time and tell them this charge is fraud, and that’s it! They take it from there, restore the balance, do the investigation and charge back the vendor. They usually ask that you at least try to get in touch with the vendor first and that’s reasonable. Maybe I’ve been lucky but every time I’ve had to do a chargeback it’s been this smooth. Credit reporting should be the same. I should get a statement in the mail every month from these agencies showing all credit activity and inquiries, and have a simple and painless way to dispute fraudulent data. I should also be able to opt out and not participate in the credit reporting system but that’s a topic for a different thread.

theshadowknows 7y ago

Class actions are interesting. Basically the lawyer for the class has a dollar value he or she wants before they even send their letter to the company being sued. Then they work towards that. Once they reach that number they don’t really care how the class is reimbursed. And neither do the judges.

jakewalker 7y ago
Plaintiffs' class action (mostly securities) lawyer here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
toss1 7y ago
Um, NO, that has nothing to do with how it works. Source: my wife is an attny & worked at a top class-action firm for over a decade. Without breaking confidentiality, I still heard all kinds of interesting stories about the mechanics & internals of how the system works - how multiple firms work together, how cases are started, etc., but never anything remotely related to such a "targeted revenue" concept. Of course there's the obvious requirement that any case specify damages at the outset, but even this number can increase or decrease as the case proceeds. A law firm can of course make big money with a big case, but it is a big risk that can take many years to return, and it can fail.

u801e 7y ago

> Credit monitoring is snake oil. What we really need is to shift the burden of proof from the consumer to the lender. If the lender cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they entered into a contact with the consumer, then the consumer can sue them. Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer.

ryanlol 7y ago
>then the consumer can sue them For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? I’d argue that the real problem here are the regulators who have shaped this broken system. Not the lack of punishments for existing within it. >Just having the SSN, name, address of the consumer, etc. shouldn't be enough to prove the lender entered into a contact with the consumer. It isn’t. The lender enters into a contract with a fraudster and gets fucked. The lender is the victim, not the consumer.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > For what? The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. For the hours of phone calls over several weeks/months/years it takes to clear it all up?
- magashna 7y ago
  I had trouble getting an apartment because of credit fraud. Was I not a victim in the situation? I had to spend hours on the phone over months getting my credit report cleared. I guess I'm being entitled and poor ole Bank of America was the real victim here.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Customers shouldn’t have to be on the phone for days to solve a bank’s problem. Credit fraud (please don’t help banks by calling it identity theft) should be handled like American Express handles credit card fraud. I see a fraudulent charge on my bill, I call up AMEX one time and tell them this charge is fraud, and that’s it! They take it from there, restore the balance, do the investigation and charge back the vendor. They usually ask that you at least try to get in touch with the vendor first and that’s reasonable. Maybe I’ve been lucky but every time I’ve had to do a chargeback it’s been this smooth. Credit reporting should be the same. I should get a statement in the mail every month from these agencies showing all credit activity and inquiries, and have a simple and painless way to dispute fraudulent data. I should also be able to opt out and not participate in the credit reporting system but that’s a topic for a different thread.