Looks like CapOne will be doing one of these down the road.
On the bright side, supposedly the SSNs were only leaked if they were part of EINs for a sole prop business application.
2 Likes
1 Like
And that’s after only one week of potential claims… I wish they just gave an updated estimate of the number of cash claims already filed. But yeah I’d be surprised if you get more than a couple of bucks from it.
After yet another breach (from Crapitol One), I really wish there was more political will to do something about it. Maybe start with setting a time line for making all SSN public so that this nearly publicly-available number is no longer used as authenticator. Then introducing a new biometric ID card system like in India or a national cryptographic key card like in Estonia. Or something along those lines. It just seems pathetic to me that the country with the largest economy in the world cannot do anything about the exploitation of its highly-insecure ID system.
4 Likes
Amen!
I wonder if they’ll give class members a chance to confirm/change their choice at some point? Or after our $125 checks turn out to be 53¢ checks, can the class then sue the settlement administrator?
They’re already giving a choice - there’s a post on FTC’s blog about it. They’re also planning to contact claimants who selected the cash option to ask for some kind of proof that they have credit monitoring.
Here is from the FTC’s blog: " For those who have already submitted claims for this cash payment, look for an email from the settlement administrator. They’ll be asking you for the name of the credit monitoring service you already have. Or, if you want to change your mind, you’ll have a chance to switch to the free credit monitoring. You can also email the settlement administrator, JND, at info@EquifaxBreachSettlement."
I don’t know about sueing the settlement administrator though. They did not exactly hide the terms of the settlement. They may have underestimated how many claims they’d get and thus overstated the value of the cash benefits claimants could receive but it was always UP to $125, not a guaranteed $125. They had the typical language that the $31M would be split among all claims and thus reduce the actual payment in case they received more claims than there was money allocated for this class. There was even specific language that based on the number of potential valid claims (aka 147 millions) the money received for Time Spent or credit monitoring alternative may be lowered a lot. So I think it’d be an uphill battle to sue them for much deception or wrongdoing from the administrator but who knows IANAL.
For anyone who wants a little more information on the process and details:
The proposed stipulation has some details on the notice and changes, in addition to details on the amounts.
Exhibit A has details on what the credit monitoring entails. Essentially - daily 3-bureau credit monitoring, and monthly Experian reports (i.e. seemingly less than what would be offered by utilizing a combination of creditkarma+Experian’s free service).
It does also provide some other interesting benefits such as notification of new bank accounts and some other alerts.
What would the name of your credit monitoring service have to do with anything? Are they going to claim that you can only claim the cash if you already have credit monitoring? Because I dont see any other point to that question, at least as it relates to the settlement.
1 Like
I believe what they will argue is that the section 1 claims are intended to either provide “credit monitoring” or to reimburse you for paying for your own. They will argue that if you have free monitoring services, then you’re already good to go and won’t need that reimbursement.
I’m not defending that position, just explaining why they are going to ask. The whole settlement is a joke and a mere slap on the wrist. Only the lawyers and Equifax (and possibly Experian, though I note they’ve done nothing wrong) will profit from this.
2 Likes
Section 10 of the settlement is very clear on this:
"If you already have some other kind of credit monitoring or protection services, and do not claim the free Credit Monitoring Services available through the settlement, you may file a claim for Alternative Reimbursement Compensation for up to $125. To claim Alternative Reimbursement Compensation you must certify that you have some form of credit monitoring or protection services on the date you submit your claim form, name the provider of those services, and certify that you will keep those services for a minimum of six (6) months. The amount that you receive may be substantially less than $125, depending on the number of claims that are filed. "
Note that it states nowhere in there that the credit monitoring needs to not be free so I’d imagine a lot of things are going to qualify for it. I received an email from Credit Karma bragging about how using them was making me eligible for that cash reimbursement. But, if you had signed up for paid credit monitoring right after the breach, I think it’d be easy to claim that as an expense fairly traceable to the breach itself.
2 Likes
Oh come on, who’d ever read the fine print? 
Thanks, by the way.
1 Like
does credit karma count as some form of credit monitoring or protection service?
According to them, it does. Credit Karma sent out an email answering that exact question. And it certainly wouldn’t hurt to assume that to be sufficient. But the devil is in the details, and one school of thought is that those who filed for the so-called $125 will be asked to name a paid credit monitoring service on the theory that one cannot be “reimbursed” for expenses not incurred. The judge handling the settlement claim will probably have to answer that. But go with it for now if you really want to share the pot for Section 1 claims.
Given that it is very clear that the actual amount will not be $125 or even $12.50 likely, and the settlement administrators are no longer pretending it will be, there is the strategy to take the credit monitoring service instead.
Will the Experian supplied “credit monitoring” (for four years across the three major bureaus, plus six more provided by the fox that was supposed to be guarding the hen house - Equifax - for six more covering just Equifax) be worth anything at all? Well, it depends. Experian offers a premium credit monitoring product that includes insurance to cover losses if your identity is compromised. But is that what you get from the settlement? I doubt it, and it isn’t clear.
I initially filed for the “$125” claim, but once given the option to change that (and it is said claimants will get that option), I might just change it. Credit monitoring isn’t likely to be something I’d find value in (do I really need more text messages saying that I just paid off a tradeline?), but I might do it. What thinks everyone else?
It would be swell if 99% selected or switched to the credit monitoring option!
Good thing this case isn’t about Experian 
2 Likes
An extremely common slip of tongue. Especially now since the credit monitoring will be provided by Experian (at first) paid for by Equifax.
At one point, I understand Experian was answering their phone “We’re not Equifax!”.
4 Likes
I’m still undecided. There’s the fact that the credit monitoring is virtually worthless to me compared to my current combination of CreditKarma (TU+Equifax) + Experian free monitoring.
And then there is the information coming from a closer look at the consumer fund distribution. Eventually the $31M cap for paying out the $125 cash reimbursement, and the separate $31M cap for paying out the 10 hours I’ve spent freezing/monitoring my credit since then (worth up to $250), shall be lifted in 4.5 years if Equifax has not used all its consumer reimbursement fund (estimates run a remaining value of $380-505M) as described in consumer fund section of the settlement (section IX.C.4-5 of the settlement linked below).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/33185/000119312519198584/d734596dex103.htm
So it seems to me that there may be a significant chance that I’d eventually get a bit more than a few $ that will be paid out out of the $31M. Balanced against the near-zero value of the credit monitoring, it’s not as clear cut as I thought first.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you. However, your argument isn’t totally about the breach. It’s really about the business. The argument on the other side is that while the bureaus could have your data without your knowledge or consent (which I think is a problem in and of itself), you generally get to decide who gets access to it. I know many people on this site actually do profit from the service that the credit bureaus provide.
As an outsider I do think the settlement should be much higher and there should be criminal penalties involved, but that’s just based on what we hear publicly. I have no reason to suspect nefarious motivations at the FTC.
I also think we need better privacy laws. If banks are going to give any information out to any entity, they should be required to tell you what information they’re giving and to whom. I think the banks should be held accountable for giving the credit bureaus this information.
1 Like