Slashdot Mirror

In their complaint, "the Plaintiffs analogize this practice of facial scanning to the collection of fingerprint data without the consent of the users." My understanding of the process is that the player must deliberately allow their face to be scanned, "Gamers get close to the camera and slowly turn their heads to the left and right while the camera scans their face. The face scanning process takes about 15 minutes to complete, according to the biometric data class action lawsuit." It seems unlikely that the user did not consent to this, only that they see an opportunity and are trying to cash in on it. Is Take-Two's scan data detailed enough or precise enough to the level of sophistication to where it can be used to fool facial recognition?

http://heitnerlegal.com/2016/0...
https://topclassactions.com/la...

Furthermore, the law is stupid. Who used facial recognition data for security? Retinal scans? Sure. Iris? Maybe. But facial geometry? A handful of pictures of any person is enough to extrapolate their facial geometry.

From 1998 to 2002, DRAM makers colluded to fix prices. There was a recent settlement to a class action suit. Lawyers must have made out well.

Anyway, for those who filed a claim, expect a settlement check any day now. Looks to be about $10 per computer, PDA, printer, etc since we had 20, and got about $10 per. Obviously it was much more than that lost due to the price fixing, but CAs only pay right to those leading the suit, and the lawyers.

https://topclassactions.com/la...

There's only four things we do better than anyone else:

You forgot an important recent one: beer. The US, despite being completely banned from the entire industry for over a decade, is now the premier manufacturer of high quality beer. Germany lost it's status years ago, and even Belgium has taken to buying up old, lousy beer companies like Anheuser-Busch and even watering down the beer from that bottom-tier producer.

Sure, that's not much of an export for the US, but neither is "high-speed pizza delivery", but at least our best-in-the-world beer has that potential.

Third, super charging does NOT destroy the batteries. They have already proven that is the case.

WRONG

It's has been proven that super charging does destroy the battery.

Look at the Davidson data breach class action lawsuit for a case extremely similar to this one. There's also the (still pending as far as I can tell) Citizens Financial Bank breach case. Not following the standards of the industry for securing this sort of data can absolutely lead to a class action settlement, even if there is no hard written security standard.

As an attorney I am a little bit surprised that he submitted his request to exclude himself from the class action lawsuit to the wrong PO Box. Obviously he's not one who works class action cases. If he was he'd know to follow the instructions, to the letter, or else the submission will likely get thrown out. I don't want to burn bridges with attorneys, but, he should have followed the instructions in the summary notice otherwise it's just an attempt at some free PR. Not a bad attempt, but, an attempt none the less and should be identified as such. Please note, that there are THOUSANDS of unhappy iPod owners out there with severely scratched up units. Now, obviously, I'm a bit biased (as President of http://www.topclassactions.com/ and support the class action system, but Judges are actually really good at weeding out the worthless settlements. The iPods included in this settlement are only those that didn't receive the protective chemical coating that Apple admitted helped protect the iPod from scratches. There are countless complaints out there which detail people scratching their pre-change iPods by only wiping them with a paper towel. If that's not a manufacturing defect, I don't know what is. I should be able to wipe off the surface of my iPod without scratching it...