
Equifax removed the $125 claim payout option after millions submitted claims - pavel_lishin
https://twitter.com/LauraSullivaNPR/status/1156617951245721601
======
deckard1
We're all supposed to take it as just a fact of life now that we _need_ a
monitoring service for a service _none_ of us opted in to.

And who runs these monitoring services? Why of course, it's the credit
reporting companies! Who else would it be. So not only do they _know_ when
fraud is happening to you, but they will happily ruin your life while knowing
and _charge you_ for the privilege of knowing this is happening to you. And
maybe, if you're lucky and the tiny font legalese text is in your favor, you
can stop the flow of awful things happening to you at any given moment in
time. Events which may just have all been started because Equifax didn't give
a damn in the first place about the security of your private information.

~~~
greedo
Unfortunately, most of us did opt in. If you look at the credit agreements we
sign when we buy cars, open credit accounts, enter into a mortgage, we give
the lender the privilege to share our data with these credit reporting
companies.

~~~
munk-a
I'm aware this is legally the case, but I think this is yet another sign that
default opt-in isn't a legitimate agreement, society has become pretty
litigious and I think some of the understanding around default opt-ins during
enrollment for other services and third party data sales need to be revisited.

I find them to be highly unethical and to generally result in a contract
negotiated without compensation and any communication in good faith.

~~~
g051051
This is not "default opt-in", like having the "Subscribe to our email
newsletter" checked on an online order form. The sharing of credit worthiness
information is the cornerstone of your ability to get credit. It's not a
hidden extra, it's not something you can choose not to get, there's no "opt
out". It's a condition of doing business with the credit grantor. It's like
opting out of having a driver's license. If you want to drive, you have to
have one.

~~~
amluto
> The sharing of credit worthiness information is the cornerstone of your
> ability to get credit. It's not a hidden extra, it's not something you can
> choose not to get, there's no "opt out". It's a condition of doing business
> with the credit grantor.

No, this is only true because the law does not meaningfully restrict abusive
contracts. Sure, a credit card issuer should [0] be able to ask some agency
for information on your credit risk. It does not follow at all that the issuer
should have permission to give information back to the agency.

[0] Even this is debatable. One might reasonably argue that the use of
inscrutable conditions for the issuance of credit cards is discriminatory and
should, as a matter of public policy, be disallowed. As a simple example of
how this could work, all credit card issuers could be required to instead
issue prepaid cards with identical terms, benefits, and usage from a
merchant’s perspective, and credit could be an opt-in extra feature.

~~~
tbyehl
How would 'some agency' have anything to say about your credit risk if issuers
of credit weren't feeding them information about your credit performance?

What's more bothersome to me is that these companies are scooping up every bit
of information they can about me and selling it to anyone. Did I consent to
TheWorkNumber? I definitely did not with the first few employers / payroll
processors who have sold out my payroll data.

I Google my full name and the first hit is some background check site that
shows my birthday, most of addresses I've had since the mid-90s, every family
member I've shared an address with since 1999, information on two vehicles I
presently own and one former, and that's just the bait to get someone to pay
for whatever else they know about me...

'Credit' information is the tip of the iceberg.

~~~
g051051
> my birthday, most of addresses I've had since the mid-90s, every family
> member I've shared an address with since 1999, information on two vehicles I
> presently own and one former,

Your existence in the world isn't a secret. Every scrap of that is public
information. You have a postal address to get mail, you register your car with
your state to pay taxes on it, etc.

~~~
tbyehl
Well, your point overlooks the points I was aiming for.

1\. Any of those scraps of data have negligible value by themselves, but when
they're aggregated and traded their value is vastly increased.

2\. I don't have any choice in how those scraps of data were originally
gathered and shared. Should I not to have an address? Pay my taxes? Register
my vehicles?

~~~
g051051
1\. Yes, that's true. The value increases, in that the more data that's
available, the better the decisions that can be made.

2\. So? Why should you have a choice in it? Those things are classified as
public records, available to anyone.

------
noodlesUK
Surely the FTC and Equifax saw this coming? 150m people were included in the
breach. Only 31m USD was allocated to give anyone who claimed 125 USD? How on
earth did they do this math?

~~~
1f60c
Maybe they didn't expect most people to follow up on this?

~~~
dzmien
The amount of money they set aside only allows for 248,000 people to claim the
$125 compensation. That is roughly 0.2% of the total 147 million. Seems a bit
off to me, but then again I am not familiar with these kinds of things.

------
pithon
> The public response to the settlement has been overwhelming. Millions of
> people have visited this site in just the first week. Because the total
> amount available for these alternative payments is $31 million, each person
> who takes the money option is going to get a very small amount. Nowhere near
> the $125 they could have gotten if there hadn’t been such an enormous number
> of claims filed.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-
proceedings/refunds/eq...](https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-
proceedings/refunds/equifax-data-breach-settlement#FAQ5)

What a joke.

~~~
situational87
Why is the FTC actively jumping through hoops to explain how consumers are
getting screwed by their own actions?

Does the DOJ need to investigate the FTC? What on earth are they doing? Do
they realize we can see them?

~~~
ZoomStop
"Because the total amount available for these alternative payments is $31
million, each person who takes the money option is going to get a very small
amount. Nowhere near the $125 they could have gotten if there hadn’t been such
an enormous number of claims filed."

"You can still choose the cash option on the claim form, but you will be
disappointed with the amount you receive and you won’t get the free credit
monitoring."

This seems like something written by Equifax not the FTC.

------
harryh
My understanding was that the equifax settlement was for 6-700 million, yet
this page indicates that there is only 31 million set aside to cover cash
payouts to class members.

I'm curious about where the rest of the money went. Does anyone know?

~~~
lioeters
According to the New York Times:

"Almost half the settlement — $300 million — will go toward American consumers
who were harmed by the breach, according to settlement documents filed in
federal court in Atlanta. The company also agreed to pay $275 million in fines
to end investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal
Trade Commission and 48 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/business/equifax-
settleme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/business/equifax-
settlement.html)

According to Equifax's FAQ:

"the total amount available for these alternative payments is $31 million"

So I'm wondering the same thing: what happened to the rest of the amount set
aside for the victims, about $270 million?

\---

EDIT: Interesting note in the article linked above:

If all 147 million victims of the breach were to take part, the monitoring
services would cost Equifax more than $2 billion.

“If people want Equifax to pay more, sign up for credit monitoring,” said
Norman E. Siegel, a lawyer representing consumers in the settlement.

~~~
eblanshey
> The company also agreed to pay $275 million in fines to end investigations
> by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission
> and 48 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Equifax's mess-up did damage to American citizens by exposing their
information. Why isn't most, if not all, of the money going to them? "Fines to
end investigations" just sounds like a bribe -- the government itself wasn't
affected by this, and yet they are being paid as much as the people who were
affected -- more so considering only the 31 million pot.

~~~
basch
Wouldn't the information have to surface first to call it exposed?

~~~
craftinator
No. You're exposed when you walk through your town naked, not when you see
pictures of it later on in the day.

~~~
basch
Someone took their data, and then was never seen or heard from again.

Its more like someone I dont know got a picture of me naked through my house
window and now has that copy of a photo locked in their secret house that
nobody knows about. Violated, yet. Exposed, eh. Literally nobody else besides
the photographer ever saw me.

------
VeninVidiaVicii
This is a gross oversight on behalf of the FTC. Is it possible to sue them for
negligence?

~~~
nikolay
We should. It looks like FTC isn't on our side.

~~~
paulgb
Seriously. I was especially struck by this, which sounds like it is written by
Equifax PR people, but it comes from the FTC:

> The free credit monitoring provides a much better value, and everyone whose
> information was exposed can take advantage of it. If your information was
> exposed in the data breach, and you file a valid claim before the deadline,
> you are guaranteed at least four years of free monitoring at all three
> credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) and $1,000,000 of
> identity theft insurance, among other benefits. The market value of this
> product is hundreds of dollars per year.

The "market value" they quote is the price tag that Experian would like you to
pay, but the actual marginal market price that Equifax pays Experian is
$16/claimant.

~~~
koboll
$16 is still a lot more than we're each going to get from the $31 million.
_Millions_ of people have signed up, which means we might get a buck or two
each if we're lucky.

So arguably, if you really want to stick it to Equifax, the monitoring service
might be a better way to do so.

------
irrational
So, Equifax is being fined millions of dollars which will be used to pay for
credit monitoring services from... Equifax? Isn't the fine money just going
back into Equifax's coffers?

~~~
paulgb
They are paying their competitor, Experian, to provide the first four years of
credit monitoring. They then provide an extra six years of credit monitoring
themselves, but they do not get paid anything from the settlement fund for
this.

~~~
irrational
If that is true, then where is the other 90+ million dollars going? Has
Experian already been written a check for 90+ million dollars?

~~~
unreal37
The settlement is quite ridiculous actually.

$200 million in fines to the states and federal government. $300-$500 million
to reimburse consumers for actual expenses they incurred. And $31 million to
anyone otherwise affected.

They could have reduced the fines by 10% and doubled the pool for the general
public. lol

------
nsxwolf
The FAQ is really condescending and almost sounds deliberately written to make
people angry.

~~~
duskwuff
The FAQ is written by the FTC, not by Equifax. They have no need to sugarcoat
the situation. :)

~~~
bananocurrency
They aren't sugarcoating -- they are actively encouraging otherwise and taking
a stance on the matter. It's disingenuous to the consumer.

~~~
ars
> It's disingenuous to the consumer.

How is it disingenuous? If the numbers are to be believed people would get
checks for under $1.

So I'm pretty sure they will be, as the FTC says "disappointed with the amount
they receive".

It's actually good advice, (absent raising the payment pool).

------
bradleyjg
Are the class attorneys going to take their share in credit monitoring? What
about the claim administrator that runs that website—-are they being paid in
extremely valuable credit monitoring?

------
atomicone
well.. when individuals lose a court battle, they owe the winning party money
from their future earnings, in case their current balance does not cover the
sum owed. Why don't they make companies do that. It would only seem fair for
the amount of damage they did :|

~~~
garmaine
Because they would just go out of business and the debt would disappear.

~~~
zonidjan
Debts don't simply "disappear" because a company goes out of business. And
there already exist nondischargeable debts (like "criminal penalties, fines,
and restitution", or "willful and malicious injury caused by debtor", both of
which should apply here).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Debts don't simply "disappear" because a company goes out of business

Yes, they basically do, if it's a limited liability entity (LLC, Corp, etc.)
absent the special conditions being met for piercing the corporate veil.

> And there already exist nondischargeable debts

That effects bankruptcy, not termination of the entity with exhaustion of
assets leaving unresolved debt. Just like death or individual whose estate is
entirely consumed leaving unpaid debt, if no one else is legally liable for
the specific debt, it dies with the debtor.

------
venantius
This underlines how small the settlement actually was in comparison to the
actual economic damage people experienced. Normally _nobody_ shows up to make
these claims because they don't actually feel significantly personally
affected.

~~~
therealdrag0
Or it shows that people will actually show up for $125, but not for $5 or
lower numbers that are more common.

------
nemosaltat
It looks like you can request that Equifax _mail_ you a claim form. They
require a _name and_ email, and for some reason the mailing address is an
optional field.

It doesn’t seem they do any validation to see if you’re affected. Why would
they? Pretty much everyone who might check, is affected. If _every_ American
requested a mailed form, the postage costs could exceed $150M

The fun part is, there doesn’t seem to be a limit to the number of times you
can request this mailed form. Further, the email address field also accepts
formats such as fuckequifax+01@gmail.com, so it would seem you can request the
form multiple times, using a single email account.

This seems ripe for some scripted shenanigans and I intend to play around
after work.

------
intopieces
I should be able to walk into any bank in the US and opt out of any of the
credit bureaus. Further, any company that fails to protect sensitive
information should be nationalized or shut down.

It’s time to put the fear of god in these assholes.

------
munk-a
From the FAQ:

> Free credit monitoring provides a much better value

No, no it does not.

~~~
ars
> No, no it does not.

You would really pick a check for under $1 over credit monitoring?

~~~
ryanmercer
When I filled out the form it said I would receive 125$, not 1$. I am owed
125$, you can't go "whoa whoa, way too many people want restitution so we've
decided not to give restitution" after the fact.

Worst case it needs to be paid out first come first serve.

~~~
officeplant
Best case we bleed all the money out of equifax and they go away.

------
resoluteteeth
Forget the $31 million. Just make equifax 1) pay 100% of all damages that
result (or potentially result if it's not clear) from the hack 2) cover the
entire cost of switching to a more secure system, including developing the
system, issuing all americans with a smartcode token or something, etc.,
without receiving any payment for it or profit.

------
porpoisemonkey
Anyone here a lawyer? I'm wondering if you submit a request to opt-out of the
settlement if you could re-litigate a new settlement in the future?

~~~
harryh
Yes, of you opt out of a class action settlement you reserve the right to sue
in the future. That being said, it would be expensive to go it alone.

Some parties have had success in small claims court though (there have been
previous HN comment threads on this).

~~~
munk-a
Also a question for anyone law aware - Is it possible to pursue a second class
action suite against Equifax as a group separate from the initial suite with
the assumption that the initial suite was negotiated in bad faith?

~~~
harryh
Given that it's extremely likely that the number of people who opt out will be
quite small, it's hard to imagine such an undertaking getting off the ground.

~~~
calny
Class action lawyer here and respectfully disagree. "Numerosity" of members is
a class action prerequisite, but it's usually met if over 40 class members
exist. In this huge (over 100m ppl), controversial settlement, well over 40
people will likely opt out, so "numerosity" shouldn't be a problem.

The bigger question is whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCPs)
allow a second class action, by individuals that opted out of a prior
settlement on the same issue. Judges have disagreed about how to answer that
question--some have forbade the second class action, while others have allowed
it. For example, compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d at 769 ("And a
person who opts out receives the right to go it alone, not to launch a
competing class action.") with In re Baldwin-United, 105 F.R.D. at 481
("[P]laintiffs can opt out of a settlement class and pursue their litigation
goals either individually or as another putative class.").

I think the correct answer is to allow a second class action. The FRCPs say
nothing about an opt-out forfeiting any rights, including the right to bring a
class action. Further, the FRCPs state that they "should be construed ... to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action," and
allowing a second class is inexpensive compared to requiring numerous
individual lawsuits by opt-outs.

There are other arguments, counterarguments, other relevant cases, and more
nuanced issues involved, but hopefully this helps.

~~~
craftinator
Thank you for commenting, it's great hearing from someone with domain
knowledge on this case!

------
gopher2
I'll accept my payment in stock.

~~~
adventured
Up 56% since December. Given their lack of cash and assets, shares ($16
billion market cap) are indeed the better option for compensating the people
that they've harmed.

One share per person at a present $139, would almost work out (120m share
float).

------
VeninVidiaVicii
How on Earth is having a credit-monitoring organization monitor my credit
worth hundreds of dollars, when they're already doing it on behalf of credit
companies anyway?

------
c3534l
I really don't understand how regulators have even allowed Equifax to continue
doing business, let alone continue to pull shit like this.

------
Aeolun
How was the settlement only 70 million? Am I to believe that the penalty for
losing someone’s social security number is now $0.75?

------
jarym
The US govt (well the FTC but its pretty much the 'US Gov' in this situation)
has just put a value on your personal and most sensitive data. And its about 5
cents.

------
murat124
These are what Equifax offers:

\- $125 cash, or

\- Free credit reporting (which is useless in essence)

Though I am affected by the breach, considering the inadequate options Equifax
is offering I will choose to keep my rights in case I become a victim of
identity theft in the future on account of this breach. I hope it doesn't come
to that but you never know and if it does I'll sue Equifax to compensate my
losses which is safe to assume will be better than either of the options they
offer.

In order to opt-out of this claim and keep your rights, you need to send a
letter to Equifax. Last day to do so is Nov 19th, 2019[1]

[1]
[https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq#q-23](https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq#q-23)

~~~
MAGZine
I've considered doing this. Isn't it an easy defence for them to say "there's
no way you can attribute the leak to us, case dismissed?"

Actually asking because I had the same thought as you.

~~~
murat124
There's no proof Equifax or court can provide that my information was leaked
from a source other than Equifax.

~~~
ldoughty
If you go after them, yours probably have to prove they are likely the ONLY
before that Leaked your information .... You're not the defendant nor do you
pay any judges or congressmen off, so you need to climb the hill.

~~~
murat124
I know. It is definitely much easier for a private citizen to take the $125 or
free credit report and shut up. Hopefully it never comes to it but if things
go south and I have to climb the hill then so be it. At least I'll know I
still have the voice.

------
jumelles
Isn't the obvious answer here to just make Equifax pay more money?

~~~
ceejayoz
Settlements tend to be “no backsies” by the time they get to the “file your
claim” stage.

------
gordon_freeman
This makes me so angry that I don't even want to start pouring my anger in
words here. :(

~~~
panny
Angry at Equifax or the Chinese state hackers who breached them? I think the
idea here is YC China wants you angry at Equifax. I hope you see through the
propaganda.

China steals your data. Low budget.

Enraging Americans to the point of taking out American blue chip company?
Priceless.

------
jorblumesea
Does it matter? The alternative, the credit monitoring, was only for 4 years
for all 3 credit agencies. 10 years for equifax "monitoring" which is of
dubious quality. You know, if you want the same company with atrocious
security to tell you when things are going haywire.

This is for a lifetime of possible risk. Not to mention credit monitoring's
dubious track record. So your tradeoffs were a meaningless product that would
guarantee little in the way of safety and a small amount of money.

At this point, you should have your credit permanently frozen and leave it
that way.

~~~
valleyer
It's Experian monitoring, not Equifax. They are not the same company.

------
fallingfrog
Here’s the thing: I’ve seen a few of the metrics they use to calculate credit
scores, and they’re all meaningless ad-hoc rules that were obviously
fabricated out of whole cloth.

It makes sense when you think about it: if you woke up in the morning and your
credit score had dropped 50 points, and they told you it was because they
changed the rules, you would say that it was unfair. And so the calculation
method hasn’t changed since the 50’s. My guess is, some guy with a crew cut
and horn rim glasses lit up a cigarette, threw back a shot of whiskey, got out
his number 2 pencil and just wrote a bunch of stuff down on a piece of paper,
and that’s still how credit scores are done.

But _even if_ it was originally a useful metric, and _even if_ it somehow
remained valid after all this time, it _still_ would be useless, because once
you make a metric into a target, it stops being a useful metric.

So the question is: why do people still use credit scores?

The answer is simple: it’s a game we play. It’s like the kobyashi maru of
finance: the only way to win is to cheat. There are all kinds of ways to hack
your credit score, by opening up a line of credit you don’t need and paying it
off really fast, whatever. And what they are looking for is the people who
will play along, who will do whatever it takes to get a high score, even
knowing the score is meaningless, because the kind of person who is willing to
do that is also the kind of person who is likely to have a lot of money.

And that’s why we use credit scores.

------
mnm1
Collecting and sharing such data as these companies do should be illegal.
Applying for credit, signing up for websites, etc should never imply consent
and consent shouldn't be required for such things. We need laws to regulate
these out of control data industries before they destroy our society
completely as these breaches and the election hacks have already started.

------
urda
How is this OK? The settlement to consumers was protection _OR_ the $125. If
that kills them as a company so be it.

Corporate welfare is a joke.

------
jrockway
I just submitted my claim and it let me pick the $125 option. All I see on the
linked website is that they added an FAQ saying that everyone will get less
money if I ask for the $125 and that free credit monitoring will add up to
being worth more than that.

I don't believe them. So we'll see. I already have credit monitoring from
another breach.

~~~
mehrdadn
It's not just the monitoring that they're saying is worth more than that, it's
the monitoring plus the $1M insurance.

~~~
ericd
"Identity theft" just means that a bank or other creditor failed to
authenticate the identity of someone they incorrectly gave money to. Why on
Earth should I insure against that?

~~~
mehrdadn
Because we live in a less than ideal world, and you'll have to go through the
trouble regardless of how right or wrong it is.

~~~
ericd
Sure, it might be a pain, but there’s no way I’m going to end up liable for
their mistake, so I guess I don’t see the point in insuring that.

------
mehrdadn
Does anyone know what "fairly traceable to the Data Breach" [1] involves? How
would you trace your ID theft to a particular data breach?

[1]
[https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq](https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq)

------
mehrdadn
This may be what the _" How do I tell the Court that I don’t like the
settlement?"_ clause is for. Apparently the court still needs to approve the
settlement, so if you're angry about this, it might be worth writing to the
court.

------
president
> you are guaranteed at least four years of free monitoring at all three
> credit bureaus

Does this mean that credit thieves will just wait until after the free
monitoring period ends and start opening up accounts with their stolen
identities then?

------
harryh
I don't believe that the title of this post is correct. The link in that tweet
is to ftc.gov not equifax.com. This makes me think that the FTC, not equifax,
was the party that removed the option.

~~~
unreal37
It's not removed. Just not recommended.

~~~
harryh
Indeed, that would be a 2nd incorrect thing about the title.

------
nikolay
How about small claim court then?

------
slowhand09
I now have monitoring from multiple source who have managed to leak my
information. Redundant monitoring neither makes me feel more secure, nor
reimburses me for inconvenience, stress, and extra activity required on my
part due to their incompetence. I prefer a cash settlement on principles, and
expenses and restitution should the compromised information be used to harm me
financially.

------
ilrwbwrkhv
why do we even use these companies?

~~~
omarhaneef
"We" don't. You're not the customer, the credit providing company is. And they
use it because there hasn't historically been a better alternative.

~~~
fletchowns
Why don't we have the government keep track of credit history?

~~~
mindcrime
Dear god, no. However bad Equifax is, the government would be even worse. As
the old saying goes "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara
Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.".

~~~
fletchowns
What sort of ways do you think it would be worse?

------
Rebelgecko
If I itemized by time wasted by hours, does that come out of a different pot
of money than the $31m these checks used?

------
tehjoker
The settlement form was deceptive too. They said if you already have credit
monitoring, you can take the $125. I interpreted that to mean that you can't
get the $125 unless you already have credit monitoring, so I picked credit
monitoring. I would totally have taken the $125.

------
ilaksh
The total settlement was much too small. Can we hold the FTC accountable for
gross negligence or bribery?

------
leowoo91
I believe Equifax wants to give that money so consumers (I didnt read the
terms) sign away their rights for future claims. This retraction looks like a
marketing effort to make it even more valuable to those who didn't ask for it,
I'd wait and see if it resumes..

------
ryanmercer
I smelled this coming a mile away, that's why as soon as the site was live I
requested mine and walked my mother through it as well then fired off a volley
of text messages and FB messages to friends recommending they check
immediately.

------
OrgNet
I opted for the credit monitoring and later my wife opted for the $125...
since we have all the same accounts, we should be covered either way. But how
do we check the status of the credit monitoring? I didn't receive any emails
or anything...

~~~
nhumrich
That's a false assumption. Credit monitoring is not about monitoring the
accounts your currently have, that's covered be there lenders insurance. It's
too cover new accounts under your name, which you didn't actually sign up for.
Assuming you are covered because your wife has monitoring is a false sense if
security. If your identity is stolen, the account will be under your name
only, not both

------
hcurtiss
What do you want to bet the payment is less than $1 per claimant? $31MM for
150 million affected people. They knew this would be the result, and the FTC
went along with it. I’m a free market right wing guy — and I’d have no problem
with the government dismantling Equifax over this breach and its fallout. That
company is chock full of assholes.

~~~
harryh
I would like to bet $1,000 that the payment ends up being $1 or more per
claimant. You in?

~~~
hcurtiss
LOL - no. I did not mean it literally. Did you have a point on the substance?

------
appstorelottery
Am I wrong in thinking that at this point Equifax is acquiring new trial users
for it's credit monitoring service as part of their punishment?

------
lunias
If you still work at Equifax then I hope that you are able to find a new job
quickly.

------
JumpCrisscross
Does someone have a link to the old paper form? Would mailing that in still be
valid?

------
malms
Read the people answering the tweet:

Actually they didn't. They just hid the option

------
OrgNet
are you going to get it if you already claimed it?

------
edisonjoao
lol

------
jibanes
they probably got hacked.

------
nodesocket
Well to be fair there is a fixed allocation of money, so if anybody that
filled it out earlier wants to actually get a check they have to limit it.
Either that, or everybody gets a check for a few cents. Which is worse really?

It’s the same as when you go to a baseball game and they have a giveaway for
the first 10,000 fans. There is a limit to the offer and being early matters.

~~~
SilasX
That just means the $31 million cap was ridiculously low.

~~~
adonnjohn
And it was. Does anybody really believe that the damages caused by the hack
was only in the tens of millions? That information is precious and the moment
that it's stolen, it's stolen for good.

~~~
SilasX
Amen. On what planet did they think there would be more people than dollars
worth of damage?

~~~
OrgNet
they probably paid 30 millions in bribes to politicians to make this happen

