Again - when a company that large puts this together, I'm sure they had more than one low-level employee review the wording. If they had wanted to say it's reimbursement for costs incurred for credit monitoring, I'm fairly certain they could have figured a way to say so.
Is Disc monitoring all three CRA's?
idk are they? just tell me!!
I'm not claiming reimbursement for the service, I'm claiming it as compensation for the potential damage and F-ing up of my life they've done to me.
You can then fill out one or more of the following sections depending on which benefits you want to claim: 1. Choose free credit monitoring, a cash payment (if you already have credit monitoring), or skip to the next section2. If you spent time recovering from the breach, you can request payment3. If you lost or spent money because of the breach, you can request payment
AP dead or Obi dead?
Seems like those claims are covered separately.
Why are you guys so against his calling it an ethical question? Because you feel you have an answer to the question?
Because it is me. If you called it an ethical question the response would be totally different. We can test my theory.
I think it is because they are uncomfortable that deep down they feel it is not really right even after all of the reasoning they wrote.
Where does it say it must be paid?
Because by calling it an ethical question, you're already passing judgement.
And while they offer to pay for costs you've incurred, what about the value of not having had your information stolen - most people would pay thousands for that.
Where does it say you claim the $125 for damaged caused? You just can't make stuff up to justify it in your own mind.
If you start the claim process you will see it does say very clearly that the $125 reimbursement is for your time wasted related to the breach. $25 per hour up to $10 hours (not sure how that adds up to only $125), so clearly nothing to do with having paid for a credit monitoring service.
Isn't that two different parts of the settlement?
Indeed.Part 1 is monitoring or $125.Part 2 is time spent. $25 an hour up to 20 hours. The reason you keep hearing 10 hours is because that's how much you can claim without showing proof and it's hard to prove you spent 20 hours when you didn't...Part 3 is actual (tangible) damages.
So you're saying they will give $375 to anyone who claims without any proof?$125 + $25*10