3 ms·
That's not true, e.g, Equifax.
by mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
That's not true, e.g, Equifax.
- loeg 7y agoEquifax settled for less than $425 million[1], once, but generally makes ~$2 billion in profit annually on ~$3.5 billion in revenue[2]. It might very well be true that $425 million is cheaper than it would have been for them to have better security practices, i.e., a metaphorical recall. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/equifax-data-breach-settlement https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/eq... [2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/EFX/equifax/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/EFX/equifax/gross-...
- quanticle 7y agoTo pile on to that, there haven't been any ongoing consequences for Equifax as a result of the breach. They're still one of the "big 3" credit reporting bureaus. They're still used by lots of banks, mortgage originators, apartments owners, car dealerships, etc. to assess people's credit ratings. This applies to other companies that have suffered large-scale data breaches. What were the consequences to Target, T.J. Maxx, or Home Depot for their data breaches? Did they suffer a meaningful loss in market share as a result of their lax security? Heck, I would be surprised today if many customers even remembered that these retailers had a data breach, much less factor that into their decision to shop at those places. It's to the point where, if I see a publicly traded firm suffer a major data breach, I almost want to buy stock in it, knowing that the price will dip temporarily due to whatever one-time fees the firm pays out, but will rapidly return to pre-breach levels as consumers forget that the company leaked their personal information like a sieve.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoSure, I was just saying that such settlements do exist and that their costs are not zero.