Equifax Data Breach Settlement - Free credit monitoring or $125 cash payment

[CountValentine]

What is the ethical question? They don't say you need paid monitoring. They say if you have monitoring you are eligible for 125. end of story. No ethical dilemma here

You don't believe the money is to reimburse you for what you paid?

[LoLo]

You don't believe the money is to reimburse you for what you paid?

No. reimbursement is separate.

[CountValentine]

No. reimbursement is separate.

Settlement Benefit: Cash Alternative Reimbursement Compensation: 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 and that you will keep those services for a minimum of six (6) months.

[sguitarist18]

Did you actually do this?

I definitely spent more than 10 hours in the weeks following the data breach

Settlement Benefit: Cash Alternative Reimbursement Compensation: 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 and that you will keep those services for a minimum of six (6) months.

Does not say anywhere there that you need to have paid for that monitoring.

[CountValentine]

Does not say anywhere there that you need to have paid for that monitoring.

I already stated that.

It is a reimbursement. It is an ethical question if someone is going to claim reimbursement for a service that is free.

[LoLo]

Compensation for not adequately protecting my personal info.

They reimburse you for not using the credit monitoring that they offer.

[sguitarist18]

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.

I'm sure they had one or two people review the wording on this. It doesn't say it's compensation for monitoring services, it says it's compensation.

[CountValentine]

Compensation for not adequately protecting my personal info.

They reimburse you for not using the credit monitoring that they offer.

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.

I'm sure they had one or two people review the wording on this. It doesn't say it's compensation for monitoring services, it says it's compensation.

This is completely different from what I am addressing up thread.

[sguitarist18]

It is a reimbursement. It is an ethical question if someone is going to claim reimbursement for a service that is free.

This is your point - the responses are saying that that's not what people are claiming reimbursement for. Why is that completely different?

[CountValentine]

Here is what I addressed and as usual it was twisted into something else.

By definition if you have free monitoring you are not paying for it, so you will not be able to truthfully certify eligibility for the $125.

Where does it say it must be paid?

It doesn't. It is an ethical decision for everyone to file or not for the potential $125.

[sguitarist18]

Right - considering that the reimbursement is not for your monitoring services, but rather for the damage caused, why is that an ethical decision?

I think most people would agree that the value of having your SSN and personal info made available to criminals far exceeds $125.

So why is this an ethical decision? What is the ethical issue at play?

[CountValentine]

Right - considering that the reimbursement is not for your monitoring services, but rather for the damage caused, why is that an ethical decision?

I think most people would agree that the value of having your SSN and personal info made available to criminals far exceeds $125.

So why is this an ethical decision? What is the ethical issue at play?

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.

[bb1836]

So if my credit is already being monitored by Discover, is it necessary to also be monitored by Equifax?

[CountValentine]

So if my credit is already being monitored by Discover, is it necessary to also be monitored by Equifax?

Is 2 better than 1? 

[CountValentine]

I'm wondering what's the minimum age I can do for my children, anyone know?

If you were a minor in May 2017, you are eligible for a total of 18 years of free credit monitoring.

[KSMH]

CK or any other service that alerts you is IMHO called credit monitoring.

[CountValentine]

CK or any other service that alerts you is IMHO called credit monitoring.

It sure is.

[bb1836]

Is 2 better than 1? 

well if they're monitoring the same information isn't it pointless?

[CountValentine]

well if they're monitoring the same information isn't it pointless?

Is Disc monitoring all three CRA's?

[sguitarist18]

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.

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.