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

[CountValentine]

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.

It says it is for credit monitoring service.

[sguitarist18]

Where? Nothing quoted in this thread has said that explicitly - and if that's what they meant they would have said so.

[bb1836]

Is Disc monitoring all three CRA's?

idk are they? just tell me!! 

[CountValentine]

idk are they? just tell me!! 

I don't know.

[zh cohen]

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.

Seems like those claims are covered separately.

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 section

2. If you spent time recovering from the breach, you can request payment

3. If you lost or spent money because of the breach, you can request payment

[CountValentine]

Seems like those claims are covered separately.

I knew we would get a winner!!!

[aygart]

Why are you guys so against his calling it an ethical question? Because you feel you have an answer to the question?

[CountValentine]

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. 

[aygart]

Because it is me. If you called it an ethical question the response would be totally different.
We can test my theory. 

If i would do that then you would argue with me

[aygart]

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.

[CountValentine]

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.

Never thought of that. 

[sguitarist18]

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.

[yos9694]

Where does it say it must be paid?

It doesn't in fact, I misread it at first.

[CountValentine]

Because by calling it an ethical question, you're already passing judgement.

Wrong.

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.

Then opt out and take them to court. Don't try and pretend that is what the $125 is for.

[KidOOO]

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.

So I think the only ethical question is if you didn't actually spend any time related to the breach.

[CountValentine]

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?

[zh cohen]

Isn't that two different parts of the settlement?

Indeed.

Seems like those claims are covered separately.

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.

[sguitarist18]

Yeah, once you go above 10 hours you need to show proof - most people, when freaking out and doing research on what they can do to protect themselves are not documenting such, or printing out their internet history showing the time they spent.

[KidOOO]

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

[ludmila]

So you're saying they will give $375 to anyone who claims without any proof?

$125 + $25*10

That is how it looks like.