Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdoliner | Hacker News Reader

I just got an email about this settlement telling me that I've been awarded a 10% off coupon for Zappos due to this ruling. So I actually have to give them more business to recoup anything... it's almost as if this settlement is going to be good for business.

View on HN

Not to mention you'd have to give your personal information to the company with a data breach again.

I'm sure your credit card is 100% safe.

> I'm sure your credit card is 100% safe

Thanks for reminding me about that. Credit cards I get cancel and get new ones, but my passport data which Cathay Pacific failed to protect, this unfortunately cannot be changed and the data is floating around somewhere.

Who cares if their card gets stolen these days? Last time it happened to me I just spent 3 minutes on live chat to dispute the charges, new card arrived after 48 hours and applepay worked immediately.

I wonder what actually happens if you send them an objection (per section 11 of the linked page).

I opted out of a class action settlement once (the Google/Apple/etc wage fixing lawsuit). The opt-out did absolutely nothing except that I didn't get a check but I did retain my right to sue. The tart letter I wrote to the judge about the quality of "my" attorney, though, that got a reaction. Not from the judge, but from those attorneys. They went from "won't return your email" to "very concerned to make sure I was satisfied". Only time I've ever had a lawyer dance for me.

The opt-out isn't really supposed to "do anything," because it doesn't necessarily mean you disagree with the settlement, just that you would rather litigate on your own in your specific case.

I opt out of them all. Partly I object to being tallied up as a profit source for lawyers I've never met and who certainly are not working for me. But mostly, it entertains me to write them letters with, perhaps, less sincerity than they're used to receiving.

If I'm supposed to waste my time over their collusion with the supposed offender in order to legitimize their payday, they can waste theirs entertaining me so I actually get something out of it.

Right, but I'm interested in what happens if you _object_ rather than _opt out_. I wonder what the court's process for considering those objections is.

I believe those the same...if you object to the class action suit, you forgo payment but retain the ability to sue on your own.

Nope. You get payment and lose ability to sue on your own.

I believe those are the same...if you object to the class action suit, you forgo payment but retain the ability to sue on your own.

No - read the linked page, specifically question 12. Opt-out and objection are separate. You can only object if you do not opt-out.

...Wow. That's incredible. 10% isn't even like... a good discount or anything. What kind of hack judge will sign off on this?

This is from the page:

“Both sides agreed to a settlement to avoid the uncertainty and cost of litigation, and to provide benefits to Class Members more promptly. The Court did not decide in favor of the Class Representatives or Zappos. Zappos denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims in this class action.”

It was a mutually agreed upon arbitration, no judges were involved in the decision.

There's no "decision," just an agreement. However, judges often must approve settlement agreements to ensure that it doesn't benefit only the attorneys. (Yes, this one looks bad, but looking at the numbers involved here, the attorney's fees look pretty reasonable in terms of the amount of time spent on the case.)

The attorney fees shouldn’t depend on the time they spent on the case, they should get paid for creating value for their clients

The same could be said for any profession, yet, as we all know, plenty of effort has been "wasted" writing software or services that ultimately were a flop.

> the attorney’s fees look pretty reasonable

Is this sarcasm? You are kidding right? They get paid for wasting everyone’s time?

I think it comes down to lawyers * time spent * rate + paralegals * time spent * rate, and knowing that a class action probably requires a lot of work.

Given that, I think GP is probably right in that the fees look reasonable, it's just that maybe it's a case that shouldn't have been litigated if the payout was going to be that small.

Think of it this way, if you want to sue your neighbor for causing some damage to your car, and you expect the money you can recoup is probably capped at around $5k (maybe the amount it cost you to fix), do you hire a lawyer to litigate it for you? If you do, and the lawyer gets you that $5k, but presents you a bill for $4,800 for time spent, do you blame the lawyer, or perhaps was it not worth using that exact strategy to recoup your money, and you would have been better served by small claims court.

So, the question here is, was the payout ever expected to by significantly higher? If not, then there's probably no reason for it to have been a class-action. If so, it probably just depends on even more variables. In the end, people got something out of it, which is probably more than they would have gotten otherwise. Also, there's the benefit of companies knowing they can be sued for these data breaches, which allows them to put a real cost to it, so they put more towards making sure it's secure, even if it didn't help the individuals much in this instance.

They are not reasonable if they bring 0 value anyone but themselves and zero punishment. It's net negative since they spent everyone's times and hence also public money.

So the lawyers, who got a million and a half bucks, agreed to settle on behalf of the 145 million victims for $22,500 - or a value of ~$0.000015 per victim.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" -- Shakespeare, 1591

All the victims should opt out and class sue the law firm for crummy representation. Surely all my data is worth at least a whole penny!

Collective punishment is always a bad idea.

I just got the same email. I don't want a discount coupon. I want the fuckers who wouldn't properly secure information to be in gaol, and if the court can't or won't do that I want them to be bankrupted and made destitute to be a lesson to others who capture my information.

I can't even figure out from the email how to object to this settlement. It is absolutely insane that the settlement is in a discount code. How any court could find that satisfactory is absolutely obnoxious and demonstrates that the rule of law has been perverted by large corporations.

I would appreciate it if anyone could let me know how to formalise my objection to the judge presiding this case as their website is as clear as mud.

This is what I sent to the email address on the court's webpage. I ope that is the correct place to send my objection.

To whom it may concern,

I received an email about this "settlement". The email was unclear on how to object to this "settlement". I wish to formally state my objection to this settlement. I fail to see how a discount for future purchases will dissuade organisations from not implementing appropriate security measures. If anything this is a boon to Zappos as to receive the benefit you must spend money with them.

This settlement is incongruous with the purpose of equity courts which is to right a wrong. A discount for a future purchase does not right a wrong and makes a mockery of the court. Further, this settlement does not accord with the consequences of e: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT.

I hope the court rejects this agreement and seeks proper remedies for those impacted and appropriate consequences on those who failed in their duties that caused this lawsuit.

>Regards

You can sell the coupon on ebay, assuming it isn't some generic easy to get coupon.

Every class action settlement I've been a part of in here in the USA has ended up with a similar outcome. As far back as when my parents bought Kodak's instant film camera that got sued out of existence by Polaroid, my parents got a coupon for a discount on a specific model of camera they could never find at a store (this was way before the internet) and coupons for Kodak brand batteries.

Hm, if the lawsuit is going to drive more customers to them, wouldn't it make more sense to also include an injunction requiring them to comply with GDPR-like laws? That would seem to head of the potential of further data loss.

It means the opportunity for another law suit which will result in even more business.

Marking this bug works as intended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com