Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Years After ProPublica Exposed Vizio For Spying On Users, Lawyers Will Make Millions From Lawsuit (hollywoodreporter.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the spying-televisions dept.

After it was revealed that Vizio was tracking customers' viewing habits and sharing that data with advertisers, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company. Now, Ars Technica is reporting that "lawyers representing Vizio TV owners have asked a federal judge in Orange County, California to sign off on [the settlement] with the company for $17 million, for an affected class of 16 million people, who must opt-in to get any money." The company "also agrees to delete all data that it collected." From the report: Notice of the lawsuit will be shown directly on the Vizio Smart TVs, three separate times, as well as through paper mailings. When it's all said and done, new court filings submitted on Thursday say each of those 16 million people will get a payout of somewhere between $13 and $31. By contrast, their lawyers will collectively earn a maximum payout of $5.6 million in fees.

Eventually, the company agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission. However, this new settlement is related to an entirely separate lawsuit, one that was consolidated in federal court in southern California. This $17 million amount is more than Vizio made by licensing the data collected, according to a source with knowledge of the deal.

64 comments

  1. There only important part: by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This $17 million amount is more than Vizio made by licensing the data collected, according to a source with knowledge of the deal.

    That's the important part. For these sorts of things to have any impact on corporations the punishment must be more than the profit from doing it.

    1. Re:There only important part: by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

      This $17 million amount is more than Vizio made by licensing the data collected, according to a source with knowledge of the deal.

      That's the important part. For these sorts of things to have any impact on corporations the punishment must be more than the profit from doing it.

      I would have liked it to be some multiple of what they made off it, like perhaps 3X or 5X profits are fined away. But this is a step in the right direction, so maybe as time goes on, the penalties for doing stuff like this will become increasingly painful.

    2. Re:There only important part: by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Does it matter if the people involved no longer work there?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:There only important part: by dknj · · Score: 1

      No. The company has a vision and plans for 1,2,5,10,20,50,100 years in the future. The people in office today are continuing the plans of those from before. While the people are not guilty, the company is and so the company is liable for the fine.

      I made a big deal about this when Bank of America bought Countrywide, realized what Countrywide was doing and promptly stopped bad loans and worked to resolve the previous bad loans made. The SEC said haha no that's not enough and then fined the shit out of Bank Of America. So not only did BOA get duped into buying a toxic company, when they actually bought the company they fixed the toxicity on their own volition and dime! But wasn't enough, even though the Countrywide execs responsible were no longer working there,BOA was still on the hook for a few hundred million. It took BOA's stock from $20 to $5/share.

      So no, precedence says doesn't matter if the people no longer work there, the company itself is still guilty (Yay Citizens United) and must pay the penalty

  2. GRowth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just one of the many ways in which money is created out of thin air.

    enjoy!

    1. Re:GRowth by green1 · · Score: 2

      No money was created here, money was simply transferred from purchasers of TVs to lawyers.

    2. Re:GRowth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'all ain't the brightest bulb on the porch, aren't ya.

      data was collected, money was paid for data, lawsuit was brought in, laywers get payed, settlement is more money than was paid for data, judiciary system gets paid, all more money out of thin air.

      Seems like you're still a little green behind the ears.

      passphrase == 'enormity'

    3. Re:GRowth by green1 · · Score: 1

      Not out of this air, out of company coffers, which in turn came from sales of TVs. Hence money from purchasers got given to lawyers.

      Money does get created out of thin air all the time, but this isn't how it happens.

    4. Re:GRowth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm taking my $13 to $31 and putting it straight into the BLOCKCHAIN!

    5. Re:GRowth by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      No money was created here, money was simply transferred from purchasers of TVs to lawyers.

      How did the purchasers manage to retain rights to money that they voluntarily handed over to retailers, and the retailers voluntarily handed over to Vizio (generously assuming that there were no additional middlemen), exactly?

      They didn't.

      What money, time, or modicum of effort did purchasers invest in pursuing Vizio?

      None.

      Of course, you're free to opt out of the class action settlement and pursue your own claim(s). You're going to do that, right?

      Nope.

    6. Re:GRowth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The travesty, better you just got ripped off and the company gets away with it. #MAGA

  3. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Class actions are a terrible way to hold corporations accountable... that is generally better than nothing because otherwise there's much less incentive to behave in ways which avoid hurting millions of people just a little bit. If you hurt people a little bit they won't sue, so you need a way for lots of people to sue you for a little harm together, or else it's in your financial interest to keep taking advantage of people.

    1. Re:Yes by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1
      Yeah. I get that people don't like it when lawyers get rich off of other people's misfortune, but headlines like this seem like PR from some organization that wants to get rid of consumer class actions.

      Class actions are an economical way of vindicating the rights of large classes of people—and that is why big businesses don't like them. They want the latitude of ripping people off just below the pain threshold, whether they are selling goods or buying labor.

      Though arbitration is its own issue, the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended to be more consumer and employee friendly, and to prevent companies from creating click-wrap licenses that strip you of your right to a class action.

    2. Re:Yes by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah. I get that people don't like it when lawyers get rich off of other people's misfortune, but headlines like this seem like PR from some organization that wants to get rid of consumer class actions.

      Class actions are an economical way of vindicating the rights of large classes of people—and that is why big businesses don't like them. They want the latitude of ripping people off just below the pain threshold, whether they are selling goods or buying labor.

      Though arbitration is its own issue, the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended to be more consumer and employee friendly, and to prevent companies from creating click-wrap licenses that strip you of your right to a class action.

      The problem is that Vizio should have been beaten to the point where no one would ever even think to do something like this again... corporate bosses and board members jailed, company liquidated, employees fired or laid off, (and then THEY can pursue relief because they were terminated, from the assets in frozen bank accounts belonging to the responsible corporate heads and majority shareholders whose misbehavior and bad decisions caused the company to get liquidated,) with the assets divided evenly between members of he injured class.

      This slap on the wrists practically ensures this kind of malfeasance will happen again and again and again... etc.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    3. Re:Yes by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Generally the courts try to avoid remedies that destroy thousands of jobs.

      I get what you're saying, but liquidating companies has a side effect of boosting the unemployment roles.. That, certainly, is not in the government's best interest.

    4. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't the open market simply fill the void left by a mismanaged company?

    5. Re: Yes by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      Won't the open market simply fill the void left by a mismanaged company?

      I'm inclined to agree with the AC here. Yes, it would be painful for those whose jobs would be lost, and the poor, poor government would have to use some of the sky-high pile of cash they're sitting on to help people through, and they should turn around and visit that pain upon the person or persons most responsible for the misbehavior, perhaps putting the corporate execs and those who allowed them to do it in stocks in the public square, and let people hurl rotten fruit at them or something along those lines, again, with the intent that no one EVER will do it again.

      A basic tenet of the theory of punishment for crime as a deterrent for others or of fines and corporate sanctions as, again, a deterrent against others behaving similarly, is that justice must be sure and swift. It is precisely because it is not, it is very unsure, and takes forever if it comes at all, that the deterrent effect is lost. Suppose in your town or village where you live, the local authorities make J-walking a capital crime. Cross the street in the middle, or against the light, and we'll hang you. But they never do it. At first after the enactment of the law, people insist when they're caught that it's not fair, no one publicized the fact that the law was enacted, and that the town HAS no traffic control devices, or that the law never properly defined what a road was, etc. Then there are public protests, acts of civil disobedience, and before you know it, everyone's back to J-walking, and when occasionally someone does it and is caught and tried, every public official is assured this is his or her last term in elected office, and they start getting death-threats, or maybe someone tosses a bomb into a meeting of the city council.

      They end up failing to enforce the law and everyone pretty much ignores it. I'll offer a real-life corollary. Weed. Still illegal throughout the United States under federal law in virtually 100% of cases, but for a while, before America started this downward spiral into neofascism, it was being enforced less and less, (until the evil little Keebler Elf got his gnarled little hands on the power to prosecute people for non-crimes,) and maybe one day the government will pull its head out of its ass on this issue, but I'm not holding my breath.

      Similarly, when a corporation does something that costs them in one way or another, whether its environmental damage for which they must pay x dollars (or the local equivalent,) or cause some people to be injured or die, for which they must pay y dollars, or it's just normal operating costs, for which they must pay z dollars, etc., the corporate, for-profit world only sees these as costs, and as long as, after costs, they remain sufficiently profitable, A, they will go right on doing exactly what they were doing, and simply let the accountants deal with the numbers, and B, every other company who sees that will simply have to adjust their expectations for profit margins accordingly. It won't actually stop them, unless and until behavior of this kind is both unprofitable, and the risk of getting caught and punished is reasonably close to 100%. It's the reason why corporations don't just murder their competition, literally, or hire people to do it, unless they're members of criminal gangs, in which case they sometimes do, since for THEM, their entire operations are often highly illegal, and without the cover of a legitimate business to operate under the color of, they know if they get caught they're screwed, so that frees them to behave in a way corporations are, mostly not free to operate, happily.

      But this case has illustrated I think, pretty well, the fact that a company will do whatever it takes to make a bunch of money and please their owners/shareholders, legal consequences, ethics, morals, etc., be damned. It's typical and illustrative. I doubt this will cause any corporation to behave meaningfully differently, even Vizio themse

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    6. Re:Yes by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And that is why the Board of Directors and C-Suite should all be punished financially in addition to the company. It's the only way this kind of shit is going end. But, that will likely never happen because it would impact lawyers ability to get rich.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:Yes by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's the right track.. Fining a company itself isn't enough.. Yes, you need to make the actual bad actors part of the punishment.

      I'd propose firing the CEO and VP... Say.. 20% of upper management.. Not enough to cripple the company (we have jobs to worry about), but enough that there is lots of self-interest in not doing the illegal act and then publicize the crap out of it.. Video the asshole being shown the door by security.. There is a lot of motivation in some public humiliation as a legal punishment... Maybe strip the 20%, CEO, and VP of their stock or stock options...Remove any/all influence they have with the company..

  4. What's missing.... by Brew+Bird · · Score: 1

    How do I get my part of the settlement? I've got 2 Vizos. :)

    1. Re:What's missing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll get $62.00. A few attorneys got $5,600,000.00.

    2. Re:What's missing.... by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      From the TFA: "sign off on [the settlement] with the company for $17 million, for an affected class of 16 million people"
      That's less than 2 bucks for you before the lawyers get their cut and I'd say 2 cents after that.

  5. They haven't changed their habits much. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    I was given a Vizio TV. So, yesterday I decided to install the remote control program.

    THE PROGRAM WILL NOT FUNCTION UNLESS YOU ENABLE GPS LOCATION.

    The excuse was so that it could locate devices and WiFi networks near you. I want it to work on exactly one TV on exactly one network. I did no provide permission, uninstalled the app, gave it a one star on the Play Store and ranted about why. I'm not the first to rant about that after a glance through.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:They haven't changed their habits much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe part of the reason TV programming sucks is because of stunts pulled by compainies such-as Vizio.
      What I watch on TV is little brodcast stufft, mostly the TV is a large monitor for a PC and some Netflix viewinig.
      I usually turn on the TV when I'm out to keep my dog happy.
      Funny thing is, that's the viewing habit being shared with advertiser

    2. Re:They haven't changed their habits much. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      I'm right there with you.

      I like to have a phone as a remote control mostly because my wife can lose a remote in record time and I like SOMETHING to control it with. I've mostly used a PlayStation 3 and my own Kodi server for movies, Netflix, and Hulu up until I got this Vizio that has the Netflix, Hulu, and ability to playback from my Kodi server built in.

      Basically, with the completely unreasonable security requirements built into the Android app - and as I discovered yesterday lack of support for normal DLNA/UPNP DMR abilities I'm really going to have to keep up with that remote. I'm seriously thinking about custom building a cage for it with a tether to an end table.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  6. To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers in class action lawsuits often do a lot of work, essentially on a contingency basis, with no guarantee of any sort of payday at the end. So yes, they get the bulk of the settlement, but that's really no different from any other lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis.

  7. Cents not dollars. by catsRus · · Score: 1

    17 Million dollars, the lawyers get half and some administration costs to send out all the checks. With 16 million people in the class wouldn't it mean it is closer to 13-32 cents.

    1. Re:Cents not dollars. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      The amount of people who opt in to receive settlements affect your math.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Cents not dollars. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      The amount of people who opt in to receive settlements affect your math.

      Not according to the fucking summary.

      When it's all said and done, new court filings submitted on Thursday say each of those 16 million people will get a payout of somewhere between $13 and $31.

  8. New, new math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    16,000,000 people * $13 minimum - $5,600,000 (lawyers) = $17,000,000?

    WTF?

    1. Re:New, new math by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      The key to being smart is knowing that when something doesn't make sense, it's a mistake that you're making or some information that you're missing.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:New, new math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're stating the obvious, you must have realy super-duper mega giant smarts ! similar to a smart-phone. :-P

    3. Re:New, new math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key to being smart is knowing that when something doesn't make sense, it's a mistake that you're making or some information that you're missing.

      The key to being a pretentious asshole is acting like you're smarter than someone else on a subject while not knowing anything more about it.

  9. So? by alcmena · · Score: 2

    For me, personally, I don't see the big deal in what they did. I pretty much assume anything "smart" is tracking me and selling that data to someone. I've found their TVs to be great quality for the price, the software is reliable and consistent (looking squarely at you, Samsung, and your 20,000 different software iterations). They also keep the software up to date.

    I have 5 of their smart TVs in my house. When I bought them, they came with an Android tablet, which was pretty much the only way to control the TVs at the time. My kids absolutely love those tablets. My youngest casts from the tablet to the TV, then plays games on the tablet while she watches the TV.

    Vizio then released a new update to the TVs. Via a software update. they made it possible to use a standalone remote to watch Netflix, Amazon (which doesn't support ChromeCast so this was actually a net-new feature for these TVs), Hulu, etc. You needed a new remote to access these features though because the original basically had 6 buttons: power, input, channel +/-, volume +/-, and that's it. Obvious way to make a couple of bucks by selling said new remotes, right? Nope. Even though the TVs were each almost 2 years old and clearly out of warranty, Vizio generated a code per-TV that allowed you to request a free remote per-TV. Not "free plus stupid amount for shipping and handling", free as in I got 5 new remotes for the grand total of $0.00. It took about a week from when I requested the remotes to when they arrived.

    Long story short, I guess I don't care if they know what I watch. Netflix knows what I watch on Netflix. Amazon knows what I watch on Amazon. Hulu knows what I watch on Hulu. YouTube knows what I watch on YouTube. I basically assume each of them are somehow selling, sharing, or using that data for ads. I just can't seem to work up the anger to be upset that Vizio was doing the same.

    1. Re:So? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      All they'll get from me is I watch a lot of news (maybe 20% of my viewing) and a lot of Plex (good luck figuring out what those bits streaming through represent).

      Actually, now that I think about it, all they'll see is 50% of my TV viewing is via Roku, the rest being my Playstation.

    2. Re:So? by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Heh, I have 3 kids and am a gamer myself. So even if they manage to actually decode what's on the TV, all they will really get is "wow, this house watches a lot of something called 'Fortnite'."

    3. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi - some smart TVs can figure out what you are watching regardless of the source. They run a Shazam like algorithm over the pixels being displayed and send the data back

    4. Re:So? by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      That's okay. You can not care, it was still something they were obligated to disclose as determined by law. You can assume transparency, and we should - but it should also be stated by companies what their products do since we're beyond the point of being able to manually verify these things ourselves. That's not an unreasonable requirement from consumers of any kind of product.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re:So? by jpaine619 · · Score: 2

      For me, personally, I don't see the big deal in what they did. I pretty much assume anything "smart" is tracking me and selling that data to someone.

      Well, a reasonable person would think that a company is following the law and NOT doing this surreptitiously. Vizio not only failed to disclose this practice, they actively hid it. That is illegal and that's why Vizio was dragged into court.

      They also keep the software up to date.

      Quite interesting that this is your price for living in a fishbowl. If you'll accept updated software in trade for your privacy, I've got to assume that a crisp $20 bill is enough to purchase a blowjob.

      My kids absolutely love those tablets.

      Sold out your kids privacy too... Shooting for parent of the year?

      Long story short, I guess I don't care if they know what I watch. Netflix knows what I watch on Netflix. Amazon knows what I watch on Amazon.

      Those companies disclose that they are doing this. It's not a secret. The issue with Vizio is that they did not disclose this, and the default is to assume that your fucking TV isn't spying on you like a scene out of 1984.

      You lacking a sense of self-worth or something? Your lackadaisical attitude is disturbing to say the least.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately this class of dumb attitude is prevalent, and the reason computing nowadays is in such a fucking shitty situation.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [b]Long story short, I guess I don't care if they know what I watch.[/b] Netflix knows what I watch on Netflix. Amazon knows what I watch on Amazon. Hulu knows what I watch on Hulu. YouTube knows what I watch on YouTube. I basically assume each of them are somehow selling, sharing, or using that data for ads. I just can't seem to work up the anger to be upset that Vizio was doing the same.

      As if you had a choice. And as if you were informed about this. That's the whole point. Not if they do it, but the way they do it.

    8. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're like the guy who says, I don't care if someone sees me naked because I'm so unattractive the joke's on them.

      You do understand that most people have other preferences about how much stalking they allow to take place ?

  10. How do I get my money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I have to be in Cali to qualify? Where do I sign up?

  11. Class Action Fraud by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1, Troll

    Class Action lawsuits are pointless; the lawyers get millions, the "class members" get a couple of bucks - MAYBE. Judges need to require that at least 75% of the money go to the class members, with much less to the lawyers.

    1. Re: Class Action Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much better to let companies screw consumers over, just under a threshold where is not worth them to sue.

      Far Better that lawyers get a pay day and companies at east have some fear of being held accountable.

    2. Re:Class Action Fraud by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Class Action lawsuits are pointless; the lawyers get millions, the "class members" get a couple of bucks - MAYBE. Judges need to require that at least 75% of the money go to the class members, with much less to the lawyers.

      Good luck getting any lawyers to take one on under your system. In a class action lawsuit the lawyers front all of the costs. If they lose the lawsuit (and it does happen) they are out whatever money they have invested.

      Being able to recoup large amounts of money when they do win is how they offset the losses.

      I bet you weren't an economics major and/or are a liberal. Liberals don't like large profits either. They don't understand that some companies have to make huge investments to see a return.. Take drug companies for example.. It might cost a billion dollars to invent a new drug.. Stats say only like... 1 in 10 drugs makes it to approval.. So for every drug a company brings to market, they may have to invest $10 billion dollars...

      Class action lawsuits work in a similar way. I don't know the stats, but it's not 100% for wins.. That means the lawyers need to recoup the losses on the losses or they go out of business.

      Before you rail on them for "greed", you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the subject, you hippy

    3. Re:Class Action Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class action suits are *bad* for business. The legal system encourages lawyers to chase after these hard, and to try to build the class up. The problem here is that the lawyers are basically being "paid" to police industry, and paid exorbitant sums. The exorbitant rates they get mean that they should gamble even on risky cases with little merit, because even if just one in ten of these cases wins, it can pay for the rest.

      Lawyers should be entitled to recoup their costs (which should include the salaries of all the people they use), and then take a share in the proceeds. The amount that they can take should be capped; nobody should be getting rich off of big tort cases -- the fact that people do is a defect in the system, not a feature.

    4. Re:Class Action Fraud by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm an engineer and a conservative Libertarian. I've been involved in several of these "class actions", and an currently in "the class" for another, in which a lawyer has filed suit against a travel agent for calls to numbers on the "Do Not Call" list. The lawyer is getting several million dollars; the class members MIGHT get about 5 bucks. It's been going on for 2 years now, and I haven't seen a penny.

      The settlement amount isn't enough to hurt the business, but it's a windfall for the lawyers, and the class members - those of us who had to hang up on all those unwanted calls - get chickenfeed.

      Previous class actions, such as the lawsuit filed against monitor makers for advertising monitors larger than the viewable areas, generally yeild a coupon for a few bucks off the next purchase, without any actual cash being paid to anybody other than the scummy lawyers. The lawyers got millions in THAT action as well, while I got a limited-time coupon for $25 off my next purchase of something that I wasn't going to buy anyway.

      Class action lawsuits pay the lawyers, not the aggrieved people.

    5. Re:Class Action Fraud by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Never implied that they did pay the people.. But either way Vizio is out a boatload of money. If you feel you are entitled to more, even having fronted absolutely zero cost and therefore zero risk, you are free to withdraw from the class and sue them on your own.

      This goes back to the old "you don't get something for nothing". You risk nothing, you get nothing. Sounds about right, to be perfectly honest.

  12. Your rights were violated by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    but the Court finds them only worth $1.00.

    A court, the place one used to go to find justice that no longer exists.

    1. Re:Your rights were violated by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      but the Court finds them only worth $1.00.

      A court, the place one used to go to find justice that no longer exists.

      When have courts ever been about justice? Justice is the GOAL, but they mostly just hand down verdicts. Will the verdict a court hands down in a case happen to be just? Flip a coin to find out. That’s about the best you can do.

      I say we replace courts of justice with a blindfolded guy (or gal... need not especially be male,) and a coin. It wouldn’t be manifestly different from court system results on average, and it would save us all a LOT OF MONEY on lawyers and court costs.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    2. Re: Your rights were violated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all honesty, how much did you think your data was actually worth? $1 doesn't sound out of line...

  13. The Lawyers Aren't The Story by careysub · · Score: 2

    There a settlement of a lawsuit, and the lawyers collected routine fees. Since when is the lawyers getting their regular compensation the "story" or even "news"?

    The story is that Vizio was spying on users and paid a settlement as a result, but one that was trivial compared to the magnitude of the violation.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re: The Lawyers Aren't The Story by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My brother owns a law firm so I'm biased. When he takes cases like this, he does free of charge. He pays the lawyers. He pays the paralegals. He pays the court fees. He pays the experts. He pays the travel. If he loses, he is out everything. In that situation, it's not unreasonable for the law firm to ask for a decent percentage when they do win.

    2. Re: The Lawyers Aren't The Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Companies cannot afford to so this for free. The staff needs to be paid throughout the case, and it is not cheap to run a big lawsuit. This is exactly toy why we need single payerr lawsuits NOW.

    3. Re: The Lawyers Aren't The Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I am amazed that a non-attorney/lawyer can own a law firm... But I guess that's America. Commercialize everything.

  14. Math challenged post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $17 million settlement, less $5.6 million to the lawyers, divided among 16 million users is $0.7125 per person, not $13 to $31 each.

  15. Sad that this actually is something worth saying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This $17 million amount is more than Vizio made by licensing the data collected

    This is what a fine MUST be. Otherwise it is part of the operating cost, not a fine.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. the punishment is weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's long been the problem, even when corps are punished, it's so small relative to the profit they made from the bad behavior that they can just write it off as the cost of doing business.

    Punishments for corporations need to be crippling.

    Like if the power elites in the USA actually wanted to stop illegal immigration (they don't, cheap labor that can't complain when mistreated), but if they did, it would be so much easier to just nail to the wall any employers found using illegal labor. I mean figures like a million dollar fine for each illegal employee. I mean punishments like 10 years in federal prison for the CEO. Trust me, if you really did that, you'd only have to prosecute a few each year to make all the others way to terrified to even consider employee illegal labor.

  17. Class action compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the lawyers always take most of these settlements, perhaps the lawyer compensation should be limited to being made members of the class. Period. We get $1, they get $1.

    Sure, I know many lawyers will say "then I won't sue on your behalf". So what. Maybe the state attorneys general can handle these cases. Supposedly they work for us.

  18. What's your point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers don't work for free, you dumb fuck.

    If you don't like having to pay for someone else to perform the service, feel free to represent yourself in court.

  19. Ars Technica reports: $20/ea. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    Lawyers for Vizio Smart TV owners propose final deal, around $20 per person (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/lawyers-for-vizio-smart-tv-owners-propose-final-deal-around-20-per-person/)

    You'll note that's not enough to defray the cost of buying a new TV of the same class or value from a different manufacturer, which is what they should have required. But that would be bad, because we wouldn't want to REALLY penalize malfeasance. Ugh... I own a Vizio TV myself, from before the "Smart" TV era, so hopefully, (as it has no intenet connection,) it's not spying on me, but I can tell you this, it will be my LAST EVER Vizio purchase.

    It just occurred to me... doesn't Vizio mean "I... see... you..." in some language? Makes total sense now. #BoycottVizio.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  20. Doesn't anyone do math anymore? by PatrickRusk · · Score: 1

    How does someone report that a $17 million settlement means that "each of those 16 million people get between $13 and $31" and not see the math error? If you follow the links, you eventually find out that they expect only 2-5% of the class to opt-in to get paid. But how does someone summarize it so poorly? In reality, the lawyers get $5.6 million, the expenses for the mailing will probably come to $4 million, and about $7 million is available for the 16 million people. Only because so few people will respond will anyone get more than $1.

  21. Re: when lawyers get rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. if lawyers did not get rich, lawyers would not pursue such cases
    2. a. courts need to sign off on the fees the lawyers get. IANAL, but I assume there are legal guidelines in determining how much the lawyers can bill.
    b. There are costs involved in pursuing lawsuits. Again, IANAL, but for a case like this it could be hundreds of dollars. Or millions. I have no idea. Lawyers need to front money for lawsuits, and a lot of times they do not prevail, do not get paid, and may have to pay the legal fees of the other side.
    ----
    That said, can it be improved? Should it be?