While Equifax Victims Sue, Congress Limits Financial Class Actions (marketwatch.com) 190
An anonymous reader quotes a local NBC news report:
Stories are starting to pour in about those impacted by last month's massive Equifax data breach, which compromised the private information of more than 140 million people. Katie Van Fleet of Seattle says she's spent months trying to regain her stolen identity, and says it has been stolen more than a dozen times. "I kept receiving letters from Kohl's, from Macy's, from Home Depot, from Old Navy saying 'thank you for your application,'" she said to CNN affiliate KCPQ. But she says she's never applied for credit from any of those places. Instead, Van Fleet and her attorney Catherine Fleming say they believe her personal data was stolen during the massive Equifax security breach... Fleming has filed a class-action lawsuit against Equifax, saying they were negligent in losing private information on more than 140 million Americans... "Countless people, I mean, I've really, truly lost count, and the stories that like Katie's, the stories I hear are heart-wrenching," Fleming said.
But are things about to get worse? Marketwatch reports: It will become harder for consumers to sue their banks or companies like Equifax... The Senate voted Tuesday night to overturn a rule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau worked on for more than five years. The final version of the rule banned companies from putting "mandatory arbitration clauses" in their contracts, language that prohibits consumers from bringing class-action lawsuits against them. It applies to institutions that sell financial products, including bank accounts and credit cards. Consumer advocates say it's good news for companies like Wells Fargo or Equifax, which have both had class-action lawsuits filed against them, and bad news for their customers... Lisa Gilbert, the vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., said the Senate vote shouldn't impact cases that are already ongoing. However, there will "certainly" be more forced arbitration clauses in contracts in the future, and fewer cases brought against companies, she said.
But are things about to get worse? Marketwatch reports: It will become harder for consumers to sue their banks or companies like Equifax... The Senate voted Tuesday night to overturn a rule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau worked on for more than five years. The final version of the rule banned companies from putting "mandatory arbitration clauses" in their contracts, language that prohibits consumers from bringing class-action lawsuits against them. It applies to institutions that sell financial products, including bank accounts and credit cards. Consumer advocates say it's good news for companies like Wells Fargo or Equifax, which have both had class-action lawsuits filed against them, and bad news for their customers... Lisa Gilbert, the vice president of legislative affairs at Public Citizen, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., said the Senate vote shouldn't impact cases that are already ongoing. However, there will "certainly" be more forced arbitration clauses in contracts in the future, and fewer cases brought against companies, she said.
Why Only 3 Major Credit Bureaus? (Score:2)
Why are there and have there been, only 3 major credit bureaus in America? Is there some reason why there are not 5 or 6 or more? What gives?
Re: (Score:1)
There are more then a few trying to break into the game, but really it's a matter of trust. I wouldn't even say trust as much as it is that is the way things have been done.
More wouldn't make this necessarily better because the people purchasing the information don't care how securely it's stored. The bulk of the trust beauro's income is not based on sales to people, but rather verifications from businesses. There isn't really any incentive to have more of them.
Re:Why Only 3 Major Credit Bureaus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why _any_ credit bureaus? (Score:1)
The real question is: Why can organizations (commercial or otherwise) have access to all sorts of personal econonic histories of you _at_all_?
In many (most?) countries there are no such things as credit bureaus with people's information in them, and nobody needs or expect your "credit history". Sure, a bank may require that you provide them some information before they approve a large loan, but they don't have this Orwellian infrastructure in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need exactly 3? Why not 2? Why can't Equifax die off and be replaced through the free market? (those were all rhetorical questions)
The system is not a free market and there are powerful people in charge that make decisions about us regular citizens without us having much say in the matter. And all of this is contrary to democracy. Many have volunteered to fight and die in the name of a democracy that is now quickly fading away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests? This is what happens when "punishing" some group is more important to the masses than prosperity. If a rising tide lifts all boats, a falling tide eventually beaches them all, but the aforementioned people don't care so long as "teh gays" hit the shoals before they do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you need is to implement an Eriksgata [wikipedia.org] system.
It ensures that you can't win an election by polarizing one part of the nation against another.
Or more specifically, you can win the election but you won't reach power without the minorities feeling that they can at least endure your rule.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
That is totally what America needs: giving more power to special interest groups.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's because the swill they swallow encourages them to shut off their brains. They create a boogeyman, then push a message of hate. It can be Mexicans or African Americans or gays or whatever. It doesn't matter. Once they have people being afraid, they got them by the balls. The will do and defend anything, regardless of how stupid or self destructive it is.
Hence why Trump is president and no matter what he does his supporters will still back him. And they have proven that time and time again. A solid perce
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your fault is swallowing lies about xenophobia or racism. People voted for Trump because Hillary offered nothing but the same fucking over they have had to endure for many years. They were willing to vote for anyone in hopes of any change. Instead of acknowledging that, you and many others have decided to treat the downtrodden worse, steeling their resolve against what you say, and will likely vote for Trump again or whomever asshole is next just to spite you.
Hence why Trump is president and no matter what he does his supporters will still back him. And they have proven that time and time again.
No there are hardly any Trump supporters, only desperate people that are no longer willing to accept the options you choose to give them and willingly accepted the only other option.
They have been so brainwashed that liberals are evil
When liberal policies destroys livelihoods and calls them a "basket of deplorables", that is evil from their perspective. They dislike obamacare because they are forced to pay for something they cant afford to use. Imagine not being able to afford the copay of the insurance that you are required, by law, to pay for. Imagine how heartbraking it is to have generations of you family be solidly middle class until liberal pro-globalization policies destroys entire regions to never recover. Then at the end be treated like human trash, be laughed at, and degraded by the same people that made those negative events happen.
Have some empathy. Apply compassion and you will understand why people make the choices they do.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is a funny side to this, sort of. You did it too yourselves even though you still refuse to admit it. Why US crime so much worse than the rest of the western world, why politics so much more corrupt in the US than the rest of the western world. Lead is toxic at any level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Now the US had lead in fuels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and that means lead in people near roads and of course inner suburbs (more traffic worse than outer suburbs but traffic is worse during
Re: (Score:2)
When will millennials have time to clean up the world when they're too busy building 'safe spaces' to go cry in over some imagined psychological condition that entitles them to be excepted for doing anything either inconvenient, hard, not to their immediate liking at the moment of engagement in said activity?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest risk is lead styphnate primers when used in poorly ventilated places because of the gassing of lead in primer ignition.
Maybe followed second by all-lead bullets (no jacket) used in some revolvers, but I'm less sure of that because all-lead bullets don't really work well with high velocities. So with low-velocity ammo you have low charges and probably aren't able to convert much if any of the metallic lead into as breathable gas.
Jacketed bullets don't have any exposed lead, so I don't th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Trump got a large chunk of his votes because "not politician" is generally less evil than "career politician".
Right or wrong, much of the US is disaffected by the current political climate. TBH, the people who SHOULD be running the show and the ones who would never, ever run for office.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a 1%er who doesn't need more tax cuts, I can't help but to shake my head at all of the dumb people who vote to make their lives worse.
A common reason many Americans vote Republican is that they simply believe the burden of socialist programs will fall hardest upon them. I.e., the poor will be exempt due to low income, and the rich will exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, so who does that leave holding the proverbial bag? Sadly, this isn't too far from the truth.
There's also a prevailing attitude in this country that you shouldn't be punished for being successful. The meme of hard work equals success is instilled since a young age, and it easily leads to the logically fallacious belief [cnn.com] that someone who is successful must have worked hard to achieve it. Why would you want to punish those who have worked the hardest, with higher taxes? Ironically, many 1%ers do understand that social programs are investments back in to society, rather than a punishment. Hence why the most productive cities generally lean Democrat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which political party is the one of "prosperity" that is best for everyone? Certainly not any of the four that presented candidates in the last election.
So who?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people? Your elitist "know-it-all" attitude is part of the problem. If you really want to know why working class people are abandoning the Democratic Party, perhaps you should talk to some of them, and spend less time lecturing and more time listening.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people?
Because they're not morons.
...so yeah, at a base level it's pretty easy to know what's in people's best interests.
Obviously not taking away healthcare from the working class is in their best interest.
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
Obviously not creating a tax cut for the wealthy which drives up the deficit and/or increases taxes for the middle class is in people's best interest.
on and on...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
How is this "obvious"? In a class action lawsuit, no net wealth is created, and all the legal fees and a large portion of the award goes to lawyers. So it is obvious that it make all the non-lawyers collectively worse off.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also obvious that, without meaningful punishment, companies will continue to defraud and otherwise screw over their customers.
Class actions can provide that punishment. Forced arbitration allows companies to escape any punishment whatsoever for their illegal actions.
Re: Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not?
Yes, no new wealth is created, only redistributed. But in a class action, a far greater share goes to the lawyers.
A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole.
The problem is that with Equifax, the "injured party" is pretty much everybody. So where is the money going to come from? From the shareholders, which means the mutual funds in everyone's 401k, and from customers in the form of higher prices in the future. So everyone pays, the lawyers skim off the lion's share, and then everyone gets back a small fraction of what they paid.
How much money do
Re: (Score:2)
If Equifax is so worried about the lawyers share, why don't they just offer to settle with everyone for X$ right now? No need for lawyers at all.
Additionally, the price of representation in a class action lawsuit is probably lower (per plaintiff) than in a regular lawsuit - the amount that the lawyers receive is a high% of the settlement, but what would the amount be if every plaintiff had to have their own trial/lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
How is this "obvious"?
Class actions can change corporate behaviour in a manner which benefits consumers.
Outright prohibiting them benefits no one other than the corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate, a class action lawsuit can turn an otherwise unintended and insignificant error into a company-breaking settlement.
I think binding arb clauses are horrible for consumers and, frankly, should be unconstitutional. I also think our tort system needs huge reform but that's a separate, if related, issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It is obvious that there is nothing more expensive than something a government is providing "for free"
I realize your argument is ideological, not fact based, but I'll bite.
Your central tenet is not true.
Take health care. I live in Canada, where we have single-payer universal healthcare funded mostly by taxes.
Were I to not pay those taxes and instead have to pay for the insurance myself I would pay much, much more. So yes, the healthcare would be much much more expensive.
Or take University
Re: (Score:2)
If we're talking purely from a financila PoV it's not that hard. You need one of them there spreadsheet doohickummybobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Hah-hah! Shows what you know! I didn't vote at all. Now I'm not responsible for whatever happens SUCKER!
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are angry and fearful. It's an old, reliable formula: scare people, or take advantage of their existing insecurities, and then put a face on it: the Jew. The Auslander. The immigrant. The Mexican.
The formula works because it feels simple. There's no complicated policy or economics involved, you know its right because it feels right. But feelings *always* feel right. There's no such thing as critical feeling, only critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a thing too, but not for getting people to vote against their own interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do so many people (other than the 1% expecting their tax cuts) continually vote against their own best interests?
Because that's the way the elites have set it up, education is ignorance and science on human reasoning shows human reasoning is much poorer than thought. These links will take a while to digest.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Education as ignorance
Education as ignorance [chomsky.info]
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM [youtube.com]
https://vimeo.com/39566117 [vimeo.com]
Rd wolf on economics
http://www.rdwolff.com/ [rdwolff.com]
"Intended
Religion (Score:2)
Basically, there's a good 10%-20% of the American population that really thinks they're voting in their interests because of social issues (abortion, gay rights, secularism, etc). If you take those parts of the Christian Bible literally they'
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
The current administration is somewhat of an embarrassment but compared to the Legislative branch is only an embarrassment. The Executive branch of government has unbreakable terms limits and 4 years is a blink of the eye when it comes to governing the country. Any new executive enters office carrying all the problems his predecessor(s) leaves behind. And almost none of these problems can be solved by executive action. Every executive branch decision can be stopped or reversed by the other 2 branches of government. Even the power to declare war as the CIC of the armed forces needs Congressional Approval within 90 days and if that approval does not come than any and all funding of the war can be stopped.
What is really embarrassing is the raging mob of US citizens, on all sides, are to dense to even identify the true culprits who have caused damn near every problem we as a society face today. While people are wasting all their energy railing against a President those truly responsible are all but ignored. The United States Congress is the true culprit when it comes to ruining the country. They operate under no term limits. Any freshman Senators or Representatives that may have won election on promises of government reform are rendered powerless if the take office and start making waves. They find themselves shut out of any committee assignments which is were they real power lies. Congressional Committees decide what legislation gets brought up for debate and actual votes. We have people who have power within the Senate and House for over 10 years. If they were in the private sector the whole lot of them would have been fired for malfeasance and judged incapable of meeting any defined goals. The current lot of legislators are not doing their jobs they are doing nothing but running investigations for the sole purpose of electoral power grabbing. If only these people put half as much energy into doing the job they were elected for as they do running for that job things would be a little better. It certainly couldn't be any worse. These same legislators are some how responsible for passing the national budget but the majority of them are probably incapable of balancing their own check books.
They have passed legislation that provides a gigantic loophole on the amount of money a politician or political party can accept. There was no public debate on the 501c legislation. None what so ever. Congress has passed laws that prevent any of it's active members from being subpoenaed or investigated and questioned in an open forum. They reserve the right to judge their own behind closed doors. If these people were the standup patriotic supporters of US democracy they would all promise to never run for re-election and acknowledge the harm each and everyone of them has perpetrated on the American people.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I love that this is getting attention. There was an article about the FCC removing restrictions on further media consolidation, and the first comment was all doom and gloom about Trump. Talk about myopia. I have watched as Clear Channel eat the radio dial throughout my lifetime, but, all of a sudden, it's a God damn emergency. As much as I'd like to be happy that people are paying attention to issues I have been tracking for 15 years, it's clearly myopic thinking that won't help this country in the long run. It's like a teacher teaching critical thinking. Sure, it's great when students get the right answer, but that doesn't mean that they are learning the actual skill they should be: critical thinking. I voted for Trump, specifically, because I had the viewpoint that it would force Congress to take their jobs more seriously. (My other reason for voting Trump was I refused to vote for the Democratic moneyed interests candidate in defiance of the popular will of the party voters. To me, that act had a much graver potential impact on the future of the USA than even 8 years of DJT.) But, almost no one thinks like this. The vast majority just picked a team like they do with a major league sport and now they're dug in. If Hillary Clinton had come out in favor of school vouchers you can bet it would have been the feminist issue du jour ("Our kids deserve choice!") People in this country have very little critical thinking skills. For like 75%+ of voters in the USA, the issues don't matter; the team does.
Re: (Score:1)
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
Re:Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
Uh, I'm not sure where you get your information however the Democrats haven't supported the middle class and especially the white, male middle class for years. They emphasize support for minorities and the working poor who are abundant in the urban centers on the coasts.
Re: Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFY: they provide support for the non-working poor. They shit all over the working poor by destroying rural economies and punishing the working poor with sin taxes and subsidies for their funders. Cigarettes are bad, so let's put a $2/day tax on poor people. Cars are bad, so let's make it cost an extra $.30/day for them to drive to work. Solar panels are good, so let's make the poor people subsidize them with net metering; there's another fifty cents a day in power bills for poor people, because renters do
Re: (Score:2)
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
Uh, I'm not sure where you get your information however the Democrats haven't supported the middle class and especially the white, male middle class for years. They emphasize support for minorities and the working poor who are abundant in the urban centers on the coasts.
Yea, I'm calling bullshit on that. As I said, they pay lip service to it, but these days, the party really represents the well-to-do.
In the past, Democrats could support progressive, redistributive policies knowing that the costs would fall largely on Republicans. That is no longer the case. Now supporting these policies requires the party to depend on the altruistic idealism of millions of supporters who, despite being relatively well off, often feel financially pressed themselves. [nytimes.com]
The Democratic Party [jacobinmag.com]
Re: Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:2)
Re: Because fuck you, that's why. (Score:2, Insightful)
No. Fuck you for doing your best to divide the working people on racial lines. You're too dumb to be a villain, so I guess that makes you a tool.
Brothers what we need now is solidarity. We're all Americans, all one people. Spend a little time out of the country and you'll see, Americans are the least racist people in the world. We must not let the running dogs of capitalism create false divisions among us.
Thanks Republicans! (Score:1)
And it IS ONLY the Republicans!
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Orin Hatch and everyone asshole with an 'R' by his name are the banks bitch. Bought and paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck banks, fuck the system (Score:1)
You can't stop crypto-currencies.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren’t trying to stop. The banks and Wall Street are coopting the concept as a new avenue to bilk people of money.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't stop crypto-currencies.
Another tool for the already-rich to get richer.
Why am I not counting my Bitcoin riches right now? Because the last time Bitcoin crashed to $250ish, a strange thing happened: I still had to spend most of the money I make on cost-of-living expenses. But for the sake of argument, let's say I had $250 to blow on some cyber magic money back then. I'd have around $6k today, which would certainly be nice, but not exactly time to pack up the truck and move to Beverly Hills.
Hell, I could've made myself rich by i
Re: (Score:2)
You still have time to buy sub-$1 crypto-currencies, just in case they take off. There's still a lot of sub-one-cent cryptos, doesn't take much for them to fluctuate.
Ridiculous Stretch (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to tie forced arbitration as part of a contract, to lawsuits against Equifax, where no contract exists, is quite ridiculous. I doubt many of the 140M people impacted by the Equifax breach have a previously accepted contract with a mandatory arbitration clause, or any clause for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous Stretch (Score:5, Informative)
Trying to tie forced arbitration as part of a contract, to lawsuits against Equifax, where no contract exists, is quite ridiculous. I doubt many of the 140M people impacted by the Equifax breach have a previously accepted contract with a mandatory arbitration clause, or any clause for that matter.
Yes, it's irrelevant. However, it's a way to tie evil Republicans to the Equifax breach. There is no other reason to even mention it here as it has no relationship to the breach and subsequent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the Republicans just buttfucked all of America (again) is not worth mentioning?
No, they screwed over the Democrat-voting trial lawyers association, who are the only people who actually make money off class-action suits. But, even if it were a bad thing, it's not relevant to the current discussion. Obama and the Democrats screwed over a huge part of the population with Obamacare but this isn't the time to bring that up.
Re:Ridiculous Stretch (Score:4, Informative)
There was that part where they offered free credit monitoring to victims, but buried a forced arbitration clause in the terms. Fortunately, that got enough press that they gave in and retracted it (for now).
And let's not forget that some courts have agreed with Wells Fargo's claim that anyone who has ever done business with them has agreed to arbitration and that agreement is still in effect even after the business was completed. And some courts have agreed with them and forced the victims of that fraud into arbitration that resulted in incredibly light penalties.
Ever apply for a loan? (Score:2)
Deck chairs, titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all noise. The real, fundamental problem in the US is the fact that you can apply for credit with essentially *no* verification of your actual identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's pretty much true everywhere, not just the USA. Anyone can APPLY, anywhere, for credit. It's what happens after that matters...
Now, the USA is the place you can GET credit with essentially no verification of ID....
Re: (Score:1)
Credit is a rent based in future income and it can be insured, if the credit is not paid the borrower gets at least what it borrowed.
This is the reason why banks can't loose and keep pushing credits to everyone even if they can't pay, someone will always pay and in the last instance the whole goverment will bail them up like it happened at least 4 or 6 times.
Huh? (Score:1)
How can I be forced into arbitration with a company that I never elected to do business with in the first place? Never once in my life have I signed a contract where the other party has the Equifax name. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, this company has been collecting information about me without my knowledge or consent.
Good and Bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contact law is mostly at the state level an the Supreme Court already gave a giant FU to the states right to regulate contracts in Southland Corp. v. Keating.
Wait just one damned minute! (Score:3)
Re:Wait just one damned minute! (Score:4, Informative)
I, for one, have NEVER signed any kind of contract with Equifax, so howdahell would this apply to me?
It wouldn't. But don't take my word for it -- read where Equifax itself specifically said so [equifaxsecurity2017.com].
Or, is Congress doing the usual "Fuck the poor!" approach, legal rights and non-contracts be damned?
No. This is just another misleading, sensationalist, clickbait headline in whatever it is Slashdot has become these days.
Re:Wait just one damned minute! (Score:4, Insightful)
That domain name STILL looks like a scam site.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, have NEVER signed any kind of contract with Equifax, so howdahell would this apply to me?
It wouldn't. But don't take my word for it -- read where Equifax itself specifically said so.
True: the site says "the arbitration clause and class action waiver ... does not apply to this cybersecurity incident." But the implication that "without their specific waiver, it would apply" is false for the general public, who have not "REGISTER[ed] FOR, USE[d] OR PURCHASE[d] ANY PRODUCT." from Equifax or TrustedID.
On the other hand, if you take up their offer of ID protection, you take with it any terms they DO impose on you as a result.
Other than that, you're spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
True: the site says "the arbitration clause and class action waiver ... does not apply to this cybersecurity incident."
* * *
On the other hand, if you take up their offer of ID protection, you take with it any terms they DO impose on you as a result.
It's not really clear what you think you're correcting. The ten words that for some strange reason you snipped from the middle of your quote make it clear that the terms you agree to in order to receive TrustedID protection due to this incident do NOT include a class action waiver and forced arbitration. Here's the full text:
In response to consumer inquiries, we have made it clear that the arbitration clause and class action waiver included in the E
Re: (Score:2)
Equifax had people agree in fine print to forced arbitration in exchange to getting some compensation.
I'm breaking my general rule not to respond to AC trolls since you're not as obvious as many.
The exact reason that Equifax unequivocally said in the link I posted above that no, you CANNOT be forced into arbitration over harm related to this breach, is because of people like you who squeeze their eyes shut and keep spraying around the internet as fact the same tired paranoid narrative you've convinced yourself is true. After making such an unequivocal statement, there's no court in the country that would e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that freezing your credit includes giving up your right to sue.
So do I freeze, or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that?
If I recall correctly, the removal of the arbitration clause only applied to checking to see if your details had been leaked.
I just looked at Equifax's site and the arbitration clause is still there in the Terms.
Identity stolen from Equifax? (Score:2)
Mitchell and Webb Identity Theft [youtube.com]
Corruption (Score:2)
Theft? (Score:2)
If "identity theft" is obtaining someone's personal information, doesn't that make Equifax is one of the largest criminal organizations in history?
Whatever happened to the swamp being drained? (Score:1)
Pharma, cable, airlines and banks have just as cosy a relationship with Congress as they did this time last year. The muck seems to be, if anything, getting dee- *gurgle*
Re: (Score:2)
"You cannot contract away liability" (Score:2)
Depending on your legal regime, signing a contract should not allow you or the other party to override statute law. That's a norm in common-law systems such as Britain, the United States and Canada.
For example, a clause making you promise to not report the software you bought was stolen is not enforcable (technically the clause prohibited discussing the asember code with anyone, but the reason was that it was recognizably a different company's product). We reported it, and the thief lost in court.
In Can
Remember, you are not a customer (Score:2)
You are a commodity. Bought and sold like pork bellies. The more this happens the more I work to disentangle myself. Use more cash, no electronic payments, no credit cards, no crapplets on my phn etc. I might even switch to a land line + a trac phone. Never use the same browser made by the company who made my OS, i.e. no IE on Windows, shun social media, etc. Eventually I will sell everything, get a van and disappear.
Not morally equivalent (Score:1, Troll)
When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule allowing consumers to sue banks and financial institutions was killed in Congress last week, it was done only with Republican votes. When it was killed in the Senate, it was done only with Republican votes. Not a single Democrat voted for this giveaway to the banks.
No, the two parties in the United States are not "two sides of the same coin". They are not morally equivalent.
They keep you all worked up about gays and NFL players taking a knee and blacks
Nothing to do with Equifax (Score:2)
Mandatory arbitration clauses are in contracts. People have contracts with their banks. People do not have contracts with Equifax, nor is it immediately obvious how it would indemnify any banks. Ergo, the CFPB's proposed regulation wouldn't have done anything in the first place.
Equifax did start with a mandatory arbitration clause in their post-breach credit monitoring services. After an outcry it was removed. And bear in mind there would have been no contract until someone agreed to their monitoring servic
Re: (Score:2)
Screw class action lawsuits (class action = lawyers get paid, nothing else really), millions of individuals need to do small claims court lawsuits.
That's what I'm doing.
Elections have consequences (Score:2)
Everybody who stayed home rather get involved in making sure candidates for office will stand up for them helped make this a reality. Get used to it. Most of the congressmen and senators from both parties would kick your children off a cliff if their corporate masters told them to.
My American friends (also UK and Canada, for that matter), when it comes to this kind of "screw the citizens" nonsense, you can expect to be served a large, steaming plate of "moar" until you decide to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
::looks at his green card....:: Hmm, couldn't do a whole lot on election day...
Oh, I should have gone out and campaign for my favored candidate to convince other people to vote for them. Make sure those damn republicans don't win in Massachusetts next time!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
So stay uninvolved and watch while Massachusetts gradually changes from blue to red. The right didn't get its stranglehold on Uncle Sam by having a majority. It got it by gradually getting friendly candidates elected or appointed in a variety of low-level political and bureaucrat positions.
You happen to live in one of very few relatively "drooler-proof" areas in the US. If you think that gives you infinite immunity, you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no realistic hope to get even 1/10 the amount of candidates elected to congress that would change anything about our corporate fascist government courtesy of the Republican, Democrat and yes even LIbertarian parties. And a president that would do it, pffft?
Hot button issues distract from that core problem of large corporations having our government in their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trolling, but I'm not talking about just turning up on election day to cast a vote and then patting oneself on the back, either. A lot of what's going on now originates at the primary level and city council meetings, etc. The political process in the US wasn't hijacked overnight. If it ever gets fixed, that won't happen overnight either.
Who's signed arbitration clause with Equifax? (Score:2)
Why would it get harder to sue Equifax? Did anyone sign an arbitration clause? I never agreed for the credit agencies to collect my data. This is just a ridiculous post.
Tort reform (Score:2)
People are all up in arms about Congress limiting people's ability to sue banks but nobody talks about what really happens in most class-action tort cases. The lawyers are the ones getting rich with actual cash. The class members will wind up with discount coupons for cellphone accessories or something equally useless.
Bad. (Score:2)
Wow, it hadn't even been a decade since the innovative crash of 2008. Let's make the same banks that gave out all those loans and left the tab with the tax payers bigger & more powerful because they weren't biggest enough to fail back then. We have finally recovered from the Great Recession so it's time for that same kind of innovation again!
Re: (Score:2)
Global recession? I don't remember that. Do you mean the Global Financial Crisis?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was really, really nice to them. Shouldn't we be nice to them as well?
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn’t you have tried a bit harder? Obvious trolling is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first factor in the rampant "identity theft" problem is that there is no national "identity card" in the United States. The main docu