Suing Equifax in Small Claims Court | Hacker News Reader

Suing Equifax in Small Claims Court

inc.com

246 pointswglb57 comments

This story is gaining a lot of traction, and publications like Inc are picking up on it as a David-vs-Goliath tale. Some of them link to Christian Haigh's blog posts (https://blog.legalist.com/i-won-8-000-from-equifax-in-small-...). What seems to get lost in the secondary articles is that Christian Haigh works for Legalist, and the entire article, while I believe it to be true, is an advertisement for his legal services company to help you sue Equifax as well. This isn't David-vs-Goliath, this is someone well-versed in the law with the resource of a company behind him, taking on Equifax armed with knowledge and resources that the average consumer does not have. It may be possible to repeat his success on your own, but it's certainly not likely. He was prepared to respond to common legal tactics that Equifax's lawyer would easily defeat a normal plaintiff with. And again, this is all an advertisement for his legal services company, so I've got a bag of salt we can all share.

To take the same information and present it in a different way: this legal services company is able to win a lawsuit that an unassisted or naive litigant would lose. They make some money, the person who was harmed by Equifax gets some money, and Equifax is disincentivized to mishandle people's personal information. This is good, isn't it?

Equifax may be terrible, punishing them may be good, this may be a good way to punish them. One might debate whether small claims court is the right venue, what the role of the government is, whether this is a civil or criminal matter, and more generally what the impact of litigation is.

None of this is to say that I disagree. This is a feel-good story where the little man gets to stick it to the Big Evil Corporation. I just think it's disingenuous to present it as a story of what one man can do in the face of injustice, and then have a publication like Inc. repeat the story while leaving out important details about the plaintiff's qualifications and incentive.

This is the type of advertisement I'm OK with. Haigh didn't hide the fact he worked for Legalist, and he provided pretty much a step-by-step guide from the blog post on how to pursue a claim against Equifax.

Net positive. Good for him, good for claimants.

Haigh's association with Legalist is mentioned in the second paragraph of this article, and they go on to talk about them funding other Equifax litigants, so I don't think that point has been lost at all.

(Also, I believe Legalist aren't funding Equifax litigants anymore)

My bad; I admit I missed that on first read. I was reacting more to prior discussions I'd had and simply seeing the Inc reference pushed me to comment.

The "Equifax's lawyer" is not allowed in the small claims court, it's mano a mano

There's a followup article; Equifax appealed, and lawyers were allowed during the appeal: https://blog.legalist.com/i-fought-equifaxs-lawyer-in-court-....

small claims court may be dismissed by major corporations as inconvenient and worthy of quick settlement, however many may be mistaken in this judgement. Small claims court victories, if added up over time work as a sort of cancer that erodes at the foundation of the supremacy of tacit communal beliefs in an industry or corporate entity. These victories can be evidenced in "real" trials, and often have the overwhelming power to issue a damning indictment of the company at hand.

What equifax is trying to avoid is a sizable majority of victories that would in turn erode the foundation of the "identify theft" myth that the blame lies with no one at best, or the customer at worst. Its why Equifax and other companies often issue an appeal to their loss in small claims court as the appeal process can include a lawyer. In the case of equifax theyre likely to throw their VP level legal team on a plane and show up with a top brass firm to contest your victory. Sure, it costs them in the millions to do this, but costly battles like these prevent losing the war.

The problem is that doesn't scale. If this spreads, it'll quickly grow beyond their ability to contain it.

Not Equifax but here's a story about how another David once met his Goliath in Small Claims Court. I wish I could find an online citation to confirm the details :-(

In the 1970's, financial conglomerate Transamerica owned a credit card brand, Diners Club I think. An ordinary citizen had a dispute with Diners Club and was getting nowhere. He convinced a small-claims judge to place a lien on the Transamerica building in S.F. That got their attention real quick because they needed clear title to the real estate for some finance shuffling.

It happens every once in a while.

Wells Fargo: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/17/patrick-rodgers-fo...

BofA: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclos...

Turns out it gets their attention pretty quick.

> On June 3, Nyerges, two sheriff's deputies and a moving truck showed up at the local BofA branch. The deputies informed the manager that he could either pay the Nyerges' legal fees— $2,500—or the movers would start taking away the bank's furniture and cash. The manager, after conferring with his superiors, gave the deputies a check.

As a counterargument, here's a reddit thread about CA small claims case that (possibly?) got appealed to a higher court: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/7h9tn2/i_sued_...

I haven't parsed through the updates so I don't know what the current status is, but I remember the consensus being that this guy was fucked if Equifax actually was able to drag this into a 'real' court. So, YMMV.

Suing Equifax also makes for an attractive story, but small claims court can be an unfortunate time-suck for many people: https://jakeseliger.com/2010/08/28/dont-rent-an-apartment-fr... . Granted, most people suing a massive corporations are not likely to get the death threats I did, but lawsuits-as-time-sink problems cut both ways.

It says later in the thread that Equifax filed the appeal too late and the appeal was denied.

https://imgur.com/a/dUCGJ

Also to note just because it may work for one or two times if they start to see a possibility of a large impending loss they can allocate resources to fight small claims cases also.

There is no way they win that if enough people do it. It's so much overhead that the small plaintiff is at a substantial cost-benefit advantage even if they send fresh grad associates by the busload to small claims courts around the country. The Zerg Rush attack might be the best way to tackle this problem ... until of course Equifax gets Congress to pass some kind of legislation to make it impossible to bring Equifax-related suits in Small Claims court.

I doubt "enough" people will do it. It takes some time to prepare and to go to court. Let's say that 5000 people do it,(IMO, not realistic unless organized by someone): 5,000 X $10,000 in damages = $50 million.

Say another $20m for My Cousin Vinny Attorney at Law used to dealing with such cases, and it's not a company killing expense. That's assuming that all win. You could say that word spreads, "he won $10k so you should file too," but I doubt it.

You are only accounting for money, not time.

See, for example, what the Church of Scientology was able to do to the IRS.

Doesn't precedent work in small claims court? Serious question- I don't know. But if it does they may be entirely out of luck if they plaintiff has a solid case.

I don't mind spending hundreds or thousands of dollars in order to force Equifax to do the same to defend themselves. If someone represents me, I'm happy for them to take all of the proceeds if a judgement is found in my favor, as long as Equifax loses.

The difference is, the small claims plaintiffs are representing themselves, so they're only out time. Equifax is paying lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour to not only be in court, but to write memos about it, plus expenses.

Even if the little guy doesn't win, Equifax is going to pay a couple of grand per case. Multiply that by a lot of angry little guys, and Equifax learns an important lesson.

Careful with your language there. The guy isn't "fucked" in any sense of the word. The absolute worst case scenario is that he has to pay a couple hundred bucks in court fees.

My understanding was that Equifax was countersuing for legal costs, if that's not the case then I was indeed mistaken.

They could only get up to $150 in attorney fees and up to $150 in lost wages. However, only if they won the appeal and the judge granted them.

[http://www.calattorneysfees.com/2008/07/small-claims-ap.html]

> In the process, his company started funding other people's small claims suits against Equifax, too. (Legalist pays lawyers in plaintiff's suits on an hourly basis, and takes a contingency fee if the case is successful.)

Wait: I thought the idea of small claims court was that you had to represent yourself, and no lawyers were allowed to represent you?

IANAL, but from what I understand in California, if a small claim is appealed a lawyer may represent on either side.

You don't have to represent yourself but in most states you do have to be present.

Depends on the state. In my state lawyers are not forbidden.

Legalist funds other claims, hence they pay for lawyers. You're right though — no lawyers in small claims

Based on the headline, I would have liked to hear about more than 1 person and a slight mention of a few others.

On the other side of the coin, perhaps this will encourage others to follow suit.

I truly hope this works, and that Equifax is forced to close down. They have repeatedly demonstrated they do not deserve to continue being a company.

Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16556000.

In my experience, articles that end with "...and It's Totally Brilliant. Here's Why" tend to be shallow clickbait, and this one pretty much meets that definition.

Obviously, not all 143 million victims of the Equifax breach are going to prove damage. In fact, almost none of them can. Even if your identity is stolen, can you prove where the thief got your info?

The best and most realistic action individuals can take is to freeze their accounts at the big three credit companies. If you need a new credit card or apartment lease, you can un-freeze it temporarily. Otherwise, turn it off; why should it just be available to anyone who wants it, from year to year?

But that costs money. Why on earth should I have to pay to ensure that these corporate leeches will actually protect my data?

> The best and most realistic action individuals can take is to freeze their accounts at the big three credit companies

Or you know, just don't give a shit. "Identity theft" is a nonsensical oxymoron meant to make you think you're responsible for others' gross incompetence.

At this point, if an institution is defrauded because they relied on public identifiers for the purposes of authentication in 2018, then I don't really see how its really even my responsibility to help them sort their mess out.

The practical legal action should be focused on libel when the fallout of such gross negligence is repeated as if it were factual. And the lofter goal should be aimed at shutting the private surveillance bureaus down, as their modus operandi is essentially a human rights violation.

The person in question here also didn't have their identity stolen and still managed to get money awarded, so it'd be interesting to see how courts would decide in more cases like that. Could have been lucky, could be a strategy that works - and since they are financing additional cases, I guess we'll get that data at some point.

To quote the original post: Here is a breakdown of the damages I was awarded:

- Cost of Credit monitoring (120 months at $30 per month) $3,600

- Ongoing emotional distress, anxiety, concerns, and harassment $1,800

- Punitive damages under 15 USC 1681 Section 616 for willful non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act $2,500

- Court costs $90

--------------

- Total judgment: $7,990.

All 143 millions are due 10-years of credit monitoring, which at today's rates is roughly $3,600.

Fantastic bit of earned media for his startup.

This will hopefully spur the company to lobby congress for government identification that is NOT the social security number, and in keeping with modern standards of information security, so that they can limit damages.

Nah, they will just lobby congress to outlaw suing them.

Worked for the tobacco companies.

It's sad, but likely true. Binding arbitration anyone?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have a contract with Equifax so there's no way binding arbitration can apply.

"By putting information on this website you are agreeing to legal arbitration with Equifax", heh I could see this in a TOS somewhere.

Also, more worryingly, there is a good chance that you've signed a contract somewhere that says that in all the paperwork one does in their life.

Yes that shining bastion of modern information security practices, Equifax.

I hear you, but I agree with the parent that it would be something they'd be for (now) because it benefits them in the long run. If there's an ID system that uses a public/private key kind of system, if they screw up and expose your public one, you could then regenerate a public key with the private key and disable the old public. With SSN, you're forced to just hope nothing bad happens. This would greatly reduce their future liability for the next incident.

Great, then Trump can push for national ID cards with chip and pin for all sorts of identity verification. Let's wait for adults to be in office first.

> Let's wait for adults to be in office first

So the main thing to consider is that you should never give the office power you wouldn't want the worst possible person occupying that office to have.

It doesn't matter whether you think that person is the current person, any of the previous people, or the potential future people.

Right, I am saying we shouldn't even debate better identification methods until Trump is gone because he will turn it into something I don't trust any president with.

Has anyone done this recently? Has Equifax upped their small claims court game?

Not a lawyer and just spent the past hour reading into this. It depends on what state you're in — in California, defendants of small claims can appeal in the superior court (with lawyers) in what is called "de novo". r/legaladvice says it is not recommended to go to small claims court.

There was a post a while back about submitting your information and some company would file the paperwork for you. I, foolishly, submitted my information. I believe others did as well and I never heard anything of it.

Anyone recall the link?

I wonder if this could be handled the same way as Payment Protection Insurance fraud in the UK - companies specifically set up to find complainants and litigate on their behalf in return for a cut.

The title would've been just as descriptive without "and it's totally brilliant"

Agreed, we've updated the headline here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com