Slashdot Mirror
While Equifax Victims Sue, Congress Limits Financial Class Actions (marketwatch.com)
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 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?
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.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Consumer lawsuits are out of control. Companies are being held back from being innovative by these asinine lawsuits. So called consumer "rights" have gone too far and this rollback is long due.
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.
You can't stop crypto-currencies.
#DeleteFacebook
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!
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.
and this author is trying to persaude you to believe him.
First off is this passage, "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau worked on for more than five years." Yes, WORKED ON but NEVER implemented is the whole truth. So, nothing has been lost to the consumer. Also, note if you actually read the bogus article they even state, "The House voted in July AGAINST the rule."
Second, the attempt at pity by listing a poor soul that has been a victim 12 times. WTF does that have to do with this? The bleeding heart liberal factor but nothing legally or with relevance to the issue.
Third, which the article apears to ommit and change what was passed was that these laws were focused not on credit agencies but financial services providing services to the stock markets, aka, advisers. The SlashHack author claims " harder for consumers to sue their banks or companies like Equifax." I suppose that Democrats and Communists are more similar than I realized.
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.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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.
I'm no fan of the government nor the banks and I've encouraged everybody around me to take crypto currencies instead. In my little old town of Keene, New Hampshire which has a mere 25,000 people there are dozens of local retailers that are taking Bitcoin today and we've had 5-6 come on board in just the past week. None of them have even been added to the sites advertising and promoting local businesses in the area taking Bitcoin yet. We've got multiple Bitcoin vending machines and I've got less and less of a need to carry cash or plastic around with me. A growing percentage of my business (we sell stuff) is also paid for in Bitcoin. I've only even purchased Bitcoin a handful of times because quite frankly my business puts enough of it in my hands to get by most of the time. The few times I have purchased large amounts were down to saving significant amounts of money. Basically paying in Bitcoin for resources to produce a product for another company resulted in doubled profits on a very large sale to our customer. No- it ain't drugs. It related to computers sold to a company making robots.
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?
"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
Reading news from France is quite baffling, as identity theft seems rampant and easy, and it seems incredibly hard for victims to fight back.
Sure, it exists in my country too, but a lot more seldom, especially for credit fraud.
Is it because there is no real identiy card in the States ?
Is it because credit is really easy to apply to ?
Another reasons I can't even think of ?
Read your contracts carefully. Most forced arbitration clauses have an out. You usually have to send a certified letter within 30 days stating that you want to opt out of arbitration.
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?
Equifax Breach: Setting the Record Straight
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*
Distraction issues.
And as we can see, it works soooo well!
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 Canada, the Supreme Court has overridden "choice of venue" and other anti-suit clauses, and allowed suits and charges to be laid in such cases.
davecb@spamcop.net
Class-action lawsuits don't help consumers, they only line the pockets of lawyers.
140 class action lawsuits in total were filed against Target for data breach in 2013 affecting around 100 million customers. If a customer received a settlement at all, it likely was only for $50 dollars; most got nothing. To get a higher settlement, it was the customer's burden to prove any losses due to identity theft was the result of the Target breach, most which didn't bother. But, hey, the lawyers cleaned up just like they will in the Equifax case.
...this would mean the end of biometrics databases. Once the info's out there, you can't get it back and you can't change it.
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.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Equifax stole the people's information in the first place, they didn't ask the people for it, they just took it.
So this change in law won't have any impact on the lawsuits against them and the officers of the company, former and current, who will find that they own nothing when this is over.
Each person impacted is entitled to lifetime credit monitoring and protection, as well as a hefty sum just for the hassle involved. I'd say Equifax will be worthless, and all officers penniless when this is thru.
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.
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're right. Sure, they're getting hit economically, but will that really matter if God wipes us all out in a flood because there's too much sin?
And yes, I know there's a ton of counter arguments. That's the trouble with Christianity. You can find a reason to do damn near anything in it's history, good or ill.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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 getting all the good looking white women, but when it comes right down to it, if you're getting fucked, you're getting fucked by Republicans.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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 services.
There is not and never has fully been any way this CFPB regulation would in any way affect the ability to file a class-action suit against Equifax.
An honest argument would not bring up unrelated boogeymen, as a scare-tactic to short-circuit anyone from thinking about it.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Every fucking damn one of you. Go jump off a cliff, you fucking morons.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Every contract that you sign with a bank or credit card company gives them carte blanche to share your information with credit bureaus. Now the contract will also waive your fourth amendment right to due process against any and all parties.
People sign even worse contracts all the time. Parents send their children to camp with liability waivers and covenants not to sue in the event of injury or death for any reason.
Even when you don't sign, companies claim that a lack of response indicates tacit agreement with draconian measures.
This situation is completely unacceptable.
[1] the "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" was a new entity setup under Obama and heavily influenced by Elizabeth Warren - it operates with intentionally-vague rules to allow maximum mischeif from unelected and unaccountable bureacrats (think: IRS on steroids) and it is not funded through normal channels. This was done because the left thought they would be permanently in charge of government due to changing demographics. It's repulsively andti-Constitutional to those of us who care about what the Constitution actually says as opposed to those who think "Consitiutional" means whatever they imagine they want.
[2] Class Action lawsuits are a boon to the trial lawyers. The vast majority of all class action lawsuits end up benefitting the lawyers far more than any of the individual "victims". I have been notified many times that I was a "victim" being "represented" in class action suits; never saw more than a few dollars even though the law firms made millions on "billable hours".
There needs to be some new and better way for large groups of people to get justice; class action suits are not the solution, nor are a bunch of nameless unelected government drones making-up and changing and arbitrarliy enforcing rules on a whim.
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.
Make love, not reality television.
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.
...but i've never seen them go to jail....
n/t
I wish they could be sued out of existance. Same with GM.