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.
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.
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.
Do you have ESP?
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.
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.
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...