Slashdot Mirror
Heartland Security Breach Class Action: Victims $1925, Lawyers $600,000
Fluffeh writes "Back in 2007, Heartland had a security breach that resulted in a 130 million credit card details being lifted. A class action suit followed and many thought it would send a direct message to business to ensure proper security measures protecting their clients and customers. With the Heartland case now over and settlements paid out and divided up, the final breakdown is as follows: Class members: $1925 (11 cases out of 290 filed were 'valid'). Lawyers for the plaintiff class action: $606,192. Non-Profits: around $1,000,000 (The Court ruled a minimum of $1 million in payouts). Heartland also paid its own lawyers around $2 million. Eric Goldman (Law Professor) has additional commentary on his Law Blog: 'The opinion indicates Heartland spent $1.5M to advertise the settlement. Thus, it appears they spent over $130,000 to generate each legitimate claim. Surprisingly, the court blithely treats the $1.5M expenditure as a cost of doing business, but I can't wrap my head around it. What an obscene waste of money! Add in the $270k spent on claims administration, and it appears that the parties spent $160k per legitimate claimant. The court isn't bothered by the $270k expenses either, even though that cost about $1k per tendered claim (remember, there were 290 total claims).'"
$2k total out of almost $4m on the case is *justice* when being sued for a credit card breach?
Most of them end up with the actual aggrieved getting $20 and the lawyers getting the six-figure payout.
This is sickening. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. When lawyers make the rules (be it through lobbies or becoming lawmakers themselves), they favor their kind.
We're becoming more and more a society in which the do-nothings make out like bandits. That can't last much longer, can it?
Look at the google ads that came up on this page,
Injury Compensation Claim
How Much Is Your Injury Worth? Free Evaluation With An Attorney!
Get Cash From Lawsuit Now
Don't Wait For Settlement-Get Cash Now-If You Don't Win-You Pay Zero!
Medical Malpractice Case
Pain & Suffering from Your Injury? Talk to a Local Attorney for Free.
I don't know... I think the article summed it up pretty nice:
Actual victims got: $1925
Heartland spent $1.5 million to find the people to give out that $1925.
Somewhere around $998,075 goes to non-profits
The lawyers who brought the lawsuit? They got $606,192.50. For helping 11 people get less than $200 each.
Nice work if you can get it.
This lady opted out of a class action and took Honda to small claims court and won.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/02/03/234115.htm
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
That might be the most idiotic thing I have ever read. What constitutes justice about paying money to a infinitesimal minority of the total affected people? What is justified about paying lawyers a salary for this boondoggle? You're trying to imply there was nothing better that could have been done with millions of dollars?
The courts shouldn't care about costs. Right. That's a pretty stupid attitude.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
No one expects the lawyers to work for free but the lack of a true plaintiff in class action suits creates a situation where the lawyers can strike a deal best for them and not the client. What we need is the ability to class action sue lawyers for unfairly enriching themselves via class action suit...
Laws are written by lawyers, administered by lawyers, and judged by lawyers.
You can't understand laws without lawyers, you can't hope to defend yourself in court without a lawyer.
You do realize the system is set up to require a lawyer, right?
And no lawyer has any real stake in simplifying or reducing the input of lawyers.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That might be the most idiotic thing I have ever read. What constitutes justice about paying money to a infinitesimal minority of the total affected people?
Because the total affected people were barely affected, and none of them would have been able to get a lawyer to fight this individually for them.
What is justified about paying lawyers a salary for this boondoggle?
They fronted the expense for the lawsuit and fought it... for 5 years. They managed to catch the company doing something really, really wrong, fought them in court, and won, forcing the company to change their ways. What isn't justified about paying them for that 5 years of work?
You're trying to imply there was nothing better that could have been done with millions of dollars?
I'm sure the company's CEO would have liked to buy another jet with it.
The courts shouldn't care about costs. Right. That's a pretty stupid attitude.
Thinking lawyers shouldn't get paid when they force a company to stop being evil is a pretty stupid attitude, too.
The time has come for the legal profession to become fully accountable to the public like the rest of the white collar professions. Lawyers should not sit on the Bar associations; businessmen, doctors, engineers, etc. should be the ones judging the professional conduct of lawyers. Lawyers have little to no education in these matters but deem themselves fit to judge every facet of how we do our work. Why is it then so outrageous to think that similarly intelligent and educated people from different fields should be the ones judging their ethics, billing practices, etc.?
The current system of class action lawsuits is not libertarian. It is an opt out system. The plaintiffs get to include you in the class seeking the lawsuit without your permission. This is completely backwards on how it would work in a free system. In a free system a plaintiff could ask if you want to join them and you are free to do so. The current system is only supported by regulations that allow a plaintiff to include you without your consent. They just send you a very lengthy scary legal letter that you have to sign to opt out. Most people including myself don't sign them because I don't want to read 20 pages of legal jargon and sign my name to it.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
And a grand total of $0 towards preventing any future data breaches.
A fair settlement in any data loss case would include significant steps taken towards preventing the same thing from happening again.
meh... I don't know... there's a reason the court was ok with awarding $2k to those 11 people.
Fact is, when your credit card is stolen, by law you're limited to paying $50 (and most bank's don't even ask you to pay that). Everything else is recovered from the merchants who accepted the fraudulent charges, and removed from the credit card balance. The bank then replaces the credit card (something Heartland would have been responsible for paying for as part of their merchant agreement).
If your bank removed all of the fraudulent charges, then you do not have a loss. Courts cannot reimburse you for fictional or imaginary losses. Furthermore, this isn't your social security number... when the credit card is replaced, the card number is changed, which means there won't be any additional fraudulent charges.
$2k is probably what those 11 people could prove they were out as a result of the breach.
Absolutely right. Any legal system is anti-libertarian. Mob rule, now that's libertarian justice!
Or we could make small claims court easier and cheaper. Then people could take these big companies to court themselves. It would be much more expensive to fight 1000 small claims cases then to fight one big case.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The legal system is anything but a free market. This is a big payout scheme for lawyers, using public authority as a lever to make a bad-acting company pay off those who were never harmed.
It looks like a corrupt judge to me. How much of the $600k found it's way back to his pocket?
If the point of the trial is to determine guilt and punishment, that should be a job for criminal court. Civil courts exist to compensate those harmed, not just their lawyers.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
If your bank removed all of the fraudulent charges, then you do not have a loss.
As someone who has had a fraudulent charge on my account, and as the person who submitted this story, I am amazed by your statement. I chased my (previous) bank for three weeks, made numerous phone calls and had to go into a branch twice to get my account re-imbursed the charges. If you can call that "no loss" then you must clearly place exceptionally little value on your own time and effort. Even if the bank reimbursed me for my time at my normal salary-per-hour rate, it would have been substancially more than the measly $200 that Heartland paid out to these 11 "valid" claims.
I am also quite curious about how you can claim that out of 130,000,000 credit card details that were stolen, a $2,000 settlement to victims who were really "found" is okay. People who pinch credit card details don't do it because they are bored. They don't do it to see if they can. Someone clever enough to do this sort of operation is very much likely going to sit on the cards for a while, then charge them $1 each with a statement comment of "interest fee" or "aministration fee", sell them to others for a pittance in bunches and have them see what they can rifle through before they are caught (which means that countless individuals again go through a laborious process of showing that it wasn't them spending the cash) or any other number of means to money without getting caught. I would have hoped that this class action case would have been a resounding "Pay attention to security of your customers, else it will cost you a LOT of money" message to all the other merchants out there, but sadly it has been much more of a "Meh, you win some, you lose some, you still foot the bill to the customers in the long run..." message. It is nothing short of shameful.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I chased my (previous) bank for three weeks, made numerous phone calls and had to go into a branch twice to get my account re-imbursed the charges
I would suggest changing banks then. I've had my credit card stolen too. I called my bank, they refunded the charge to the card while they investigated, and sent me a letter to sign. Received it a week later, signed it (1 statement, and a checkbox, IIRC), and sent it back. Received a replacement card about the same time. About 6 week later, they sent me a letter saying they finished the investigation, and removed the charge from the account.
I am also quite curious about how you can claim that out of 130,000,000 credit card details that were stolen, a $2,000 settlement to victims who were really "found" is okay.
The lawyers spent $1.5m contacting each of those people asking if they had any losses. 11 is all they could find.
And it isn't like these 130 million people aren't known. After the breach, auditors, forensic investigators come in.. The banks know who each and everyone of these people are. It would have all been disclosed after the breach was discovered.
Interestingly, if the company had decided to just pay all 290 claimants their $2000 and not pay the laywers anything, they would have had around $1.5 million to blow on executive bonuses.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
...except you are neglecting the actual breach.
You are also glossing over the actual cost of litigating this.
This is basic pro-corporate propaganda.
It would be nice if there were some criminal cause of action here and the relevant prosecutor(s) actually cared. In the absence of that, the only thing keeping the Soylent Corporation at bay is some self-interested lawyer.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."
--Abraham Lincoln
I'd guess that very few people with recurrent credit card billing have more than a half dozen organizations involved with that. Most of those can be updated via the internet. Less than an hour and the job's done. It's something that has to be done every few years anyway, as the expiration date changes.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
And who would write a bill to reform the system? Lawyers?
I don't know... I think the article summed it up pretty nice:
Actual victims got: $1925
Heartland spent $1.5 million to find the people to give out that $1925.
Somewhere around $998,075 goes to non-profits
The lawyers who brought the lawsuit? They got $606,192.50. For helping 11 people get less than $200 each.
Nice work if you can get it.
The lawyers who brought the lawsuit got $606k for helping 11 people get $2k and helping nonprofits get $1000k. Oh, and those lawyers spent 5 years doing it. And they had to pay all the costs up front, so don't forget the compound interest. And they have to pay their paralegals, staff, IT guy, rent, etc. for those 5 years. The individual lawyers probably ended up making about $20-30k per year. Not nearly as nice work, unless you can take on five or six of these at once.
it could be settled in a matter of weeks or a month or two
Do you have experience litigating complex cases?
"Nice work if you can get it." For making $606,192.50 over FIVE YEARS? Consider how many thousands of hours they had to spend on the case, that doesn't sound like nice work at all.
As a lawyer who has worked on large class actions, it's difficult to settle early. First, corporate defendants usually won't even consider settling until the case has gone on long enough for them to realize they did something wrong. Second, it's unethical to even make a settlement offer on the plaintiff's side unless you know how many people were affected, and the approximate damages they suffered, which can take a long time to figure out. Also, to foreclose accusations of thievery and predation, no, they weren't "coupon" cases, I never got rich working on class action cases, and in every single case I was involved many, many class members recovered far more than I made.
"But why should the class action lawyers settle? The longer they drag out the case, the more money they get - regardless of the benefit to the victims."
Not really, if it's a contingency case, which they usually are.
small claims court is already easy and cheap
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Sadly, I am not joking. If this forum is any indicator, the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" are seriously (if ignorantly) advocating anarchy. In their unicorns-are-real world, no regulation is good and the "free market" will take care of all ills. Part of me wants to see the world become what they clamor for, just to see the bigger gangs eat their food and then kill them, right after having done the same to all of the self-described anarchists.
Yeah, no. This is about as "Free Market" as it gets. The lawyers for both sides set their rates before going in.
pay off those who were never harmed.
Go fuck yourself and your "I get to decide who was harmed" bullshit.
Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Seriously, how much time do you think they spent on this case? Do you think they were paid the entire time they were working on it? Odds are they weren't.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
While we're at it, I'd like to see reform of your industry to cap your pay at a tiny amount as well.
That staff of lawyers were awarded $600k after 5 YEARS of work. They weren't being paid by these people in the meantime. Sliced up, and after paying rent on their offices, and for the rest of their staff, that's not a whole hell of a lot.
"The judge would not judge something too defavorable to the lawyer, just to avoid setting bad precedent (better a justice that favor the lawyers than impunity, no?)."
Judges have absolutely no problem knocking down legal fees if they think they're too high. You think a judge who took a huge paycut when he left private practice is going to go out of his way to give a windfall to some lawyer who probably annoyed him during the litigation?