Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Businesses Databases Government Privacy The Courts

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

While Equifax Victims Sue, Congress Limits Financial Class Actions

Comments Filter:
  • 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?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by thegreatbob ( 693104 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @01:52PM (#55453863) Journal
      Because oligopolies are as American as apple pie?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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.

    • To generate accurate credit information, you need as many sources of information as possible. The more accurate you are, the more people are willing to share data with you and the more that will pay you to perform credit checks. The real issue is not that there are so few (the natural number of such agencies is one), it's that their procedures are opaque and most banks (and increasingly many other organisations) rely on them completely without performing basic sanity checking themselves.
    • Do you think that having more credit bureaus would make your personal data more secure?
  • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @01:41PM (#55453801) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's sad, really. Scummy admin is scummy. A vote *against* a candidate (or some aspect of their base) is a wasted vote, or at least an admission that your heart is very much in the wrong place. What might really help this country is to get some truly electable third-party candidates in the mix to force runoffs when the normal jackoffs fail to get a majority. This would at least force people to stop and think a little bit longer. Oh yes, and single-issue voters can rot.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @02:36PM (#55454107)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Xyrus ( 755017 )

        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

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29, 2017 @08:37PM (#55455417)

          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.

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          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

          • by torkus ( 1133985 )

            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?

        • by torkus ( 1133985 )

          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.

      • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @09:34PM (#55455627)

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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?

    • Read your typical facebook feed, packed with "ur genious if you can solve this (grade 3) math prblem!" and the hundreds or thousands of comments getting it wrong.

      People are fucking dumb. :(

    • 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.

      • by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @05:20PM (#55454747)

        Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people?

        Because they're not morons.

        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...

        ...so yeah, at a base level it's pretty easy to know what's in people's best interests.

        • 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.

          • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @05:46PM (#55454809) Journal

            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.

          • Isn't that like saying no new wealth is formed from any lawsuit or arbitration? Class action or not? I don't see why the creation of wealth is relevant to the issue. A civil suit is an effort to make an injured party whole. In this case the alleged injury is due to the negligence or reckless disregard of Equifax, the effort to make whole is about Equifax reimbursing any victims that can be successfully shown to have harmed by their negligence. Equifax would have the option of suing the individuals who stole
            • 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

              • 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?

          • 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.

            • by torkus ( 1133985 )

              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.

      • Why do so many people think they can decide what is the "best interests" of other people?

        If we're talking purely from a financila PoV it's not that hard. You need one of them there spreadsheet doohickummybobs.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hah-hah! Shows what you know! I didn't vote at all. Now I'm not responsible for whatever happens SUCKER!

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @05:30PM (#55454777) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • 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

    • it's a big part of it. America is a Christian country, and, well, God punishes the faithful for the sins of the heretic. Look at Sodom & Gamorrah, Noah's Ark or any of the raft of preachers who are currently claiming our sins caused the last round of hurricanes.

      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'
    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      1) Because people vote emotionally and not rationally
      2) Because you have a "first past the post" which makes it a bi-party system by default and the difference between the two parties are not that big as they led you believe.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Don't forget the folks who basically volunteer for the job under the assumption that they'll be taken care of when their political career tanks. I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everyone wants their money up front.
  • You can't stop crypto-currencies.

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      They aren’t trying to stop. The banks and Wall Street are coopting the concept as a new avenue to bilk people of money.

    • 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

      • 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)

    by Candyman_JAC ( 805202 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @02:05PM (#55453939)

    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.

    • Well equifax could make their own crypto currency and cash in in an ICO. Could call it ecoin.
    • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @02:20PM (#55454029) Homepage

      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.

      • The fact that the Republicans just buttfucked all of America (again) is not worth mentioning?
        • 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.

    • by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @06:50PM (#55455061)

      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.

    • or get a bank account? Congrats, you have a contract. It's buried deep in there but you gave the credit agencies carte blanche to do as they please with your information.
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @02:07PM (#55453959) Homepage

    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.

    • The real, fundamental problem in the US is the fact that you can apply for credit with essentially *no* verification of your actual identity.

      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....

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Contract law should prohibit giving up rights. Also, unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats(ie CFPB) should not be making laws. If Congress doesn't want to do it then let state legislatures do it.
    • 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.

  • by GerryGilmore ( 663905 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @02:30PM (#55454075)
    I, for one, have NEVER signed any kind of contract with Equifax, so howdahell would this apply to me? Or, is Congress doing the usual "Fuck the poor!" approach, legal rights and non-contracts be damned?
    • by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @03:14PM (#55454235)

      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.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @04:57PM (#55454651)

        That domain name STILL looks like a scam site.

      • 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.

        • 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:

          • 2) No Waiver Of Rights For This Cyber Security Incident
            In response to consumer inquiries, we have made it clear that the arbitration clause and class action waiver included in the E
    • I'm thinking the same: any mandatory arbitration clause wouldn't/won't apply to most Americans, as they've never signed a contract with Equifax, thus never agreed to any such clause. The people are the product -- not the customers.
    • It appears that freezing your credit includes giving up your right to sue.

      So do I freeze, or not?

      • That appears to have been the case only for those who signed up on Equifax's website after the hack was publicized for Equifax's "Credit Protection" fru-fru. Basic credit freeze (which I've done at all 3) - outside of the specific Equifax site mentioned - does NOT remove any of your legal rights.
        • 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.

  • "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."

    Mitchell and Webb Identity Theft [youtube.com]
  • The simple answer to these combined events. One shows the need for greater oversight with measurable damages, but politicians beholden to niche interests act contrary to that. This is more than unrepresentative of the majority of their actual constituents, it shows that they hold the interests of the few who benefit from the policy above those who voted for them. That can be changed though. Leave the corrupt to get votes only from the corrupt, and deprive them of all others.
  • If "identity theft" is obtaining someone's personal information, doesn't that make Equifax is one of the largest criminal organizations in history?

  • 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*

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      ::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!!!!

      • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.

Working...