This seems like an elaborate scam. I never eliminated my facebook account, but I definitely stopped using them. I think the Cambridge Analytica abuse is the least of their privacy abuses.
I believe that was the biometric data lawsuit? If so, I was a member of that settlement and while the initial promise was as high as $395 (that’s what made the news), the actual checks people got were much smaller - I just found a picture of mine - $30.61
There have been at least two separate Facebook settlements (so far). The most recent one was indeed $30.61. The one from a year or two ago was (edit) $397, as another poster said.
Didn't even know Plaid had already been sued, now I feel extra justified for shitlisting Cash App the other day when they tried to get me to use Plaid in order for them to deposit money into a bank account whose details they already had and into which they had already previously successfully deposited money.
I think GP's point is that the amount of the settlement is not enough given the total number of users involved, rather than the class action itself is insignificant.
In my opinion, in these type of cases, the amount should be directly correlated to how much revenue the company generated from the sale of the data. If the sale of my data is deemed illegal/unethical/etc, then I should reap all financial benefits plus damages.
What's stopping FB from just continuing this practice and just upping their costs to their customers to include this added "cost" of doing business?
It's a good point. More hyperscale excesses would be redressed if we calculated on the greater of damages or profits.
My understanding of the current model is that if {profit} - {legal fees} > {calculated damages settlement}, there's zero incentive not to break the law.
Generally, class actions can include changes in behavior as part of the settlement. Class actions also pave the way for bigger class actions if the behavior isn’t changed, especially since they often negotiated by claiming to have already spent resources fixing the issue and their claims and the settlement have to pass judicial approval.
A payout of 100 billion and then the company goes bankrupt. Or more realistically a company doing such egregious behavior would cause customers to stop using it and then lead to it drastically changing or going bankrupt.
But people constantly accept abuse and then forget about it.
In these kind of cases, only lawyers make a windfall.
While mostly true, I've made four figures over the last five years from these kinds of lawsuit settlements. All of them from cases of companies either violating my privacy rights, or data breaches.
I've made hundreds of dollars from Facebook alone.
"In these kind of cases, only lawyers make a windfall."
I am starting to think this is by design. Congress is full of lawyers and they probably make laws for lawyers. If I were in charge I probably would make laws that benefit engineers.
Class-action lawsuits are a way to punish some entity, but not provide any meaningful restitution to victims. They just provide a way for law firms to reap the rewards of the victims abuse. The victims are even required to give up their rights to sue in exchange for the $0.05 - $5.
Yes the downside is the laywers get most of the money.
The upside is there is a big incentive for law firms to punish companies that stray from the law, which surely helps keep these companies more compliant than they otherwise would be.
which surely helps keep these companies more compliant than they otherwise would be.
I really feel like these don't. This is what, a fraction of a fraction of their revenue? And it took how many years for it to get to this point? Let me know when governments have stopped being chickenshit and start threatening with substantial revenue amounts, and better yet, jail time for execs.
Lawsuits are indeed an interesting way of enforcing the law. Although what I find particularly egregious is when a single party and lawyer is used to enforce the law for multiple people, keeping the payout for themselves.
For instance, Albert Dytch [0] was a party to HUNDREDS of lawsuits, seeking ADA violations for places he essentially went to only with the purpose of finding something wrong to sue for. Why isn't that money distributed across the affected disabled people rather than one guy and his lawyer? The incentives are perverse.
We need a better legal system. We need to end the lock hold lawyers have the system. It's entirely too expensive. Allow anyone to practice law. Ban complex judge and lawyer speak.
The theory is that the threat of a class action lawsuit keeps us all safer than we otherwise would be. So we benefit from all the class action lawsuits that didn't happen because companies complied with the law.
Nothing is. Its just an opportunity to work "trump made u feel bad haha" into the thread.
The whole point of supporting Trump for a lot of these people was simply the delightful thrill of having gained a pet bully that could inflict some form - any form - of grief on people they didn't like, with all the blowback going to the pet and none to themselves.
The same motivation that drives rolling coal on EVs and brandishing assault rifles in public: addiction to petty displays of imagined power over others.
It doesn't read weird at all. The CA incident had a ton of stories about it, that's brought in so the reader goes "oh, that stuff" and knows WTF the piece is about. It's the only case of this happening that more than a very, very small proportion of readers would be aware of.
I have submitted my data, but while doing so, I wondered if I trust these guys any more with the data. This ends up as a CSV on some lawyer's laptop Downloads folder eventually.
Because if companies that behaved badly were actually held accountable our economic system would collapse, and the people in power who benefit from it won't allow that to happen.
So, if I apply for this, Facebook will know my real name and address. I have not used it for years. But I think it is worth the $5 USD I will get to keep that information out of Facebook's hand.
We really need a better system for knowing the authenticity of these settlement web sites.
Right now we get some special web site that's like FooCompanyBarIssueSettlement.com, which is descriptive, but how do we know it's not some phishing site?
The site itself always says it's the official site and gives a case number, but there's nothing stopping a fake site from doing those things.
Right now we have to rely on it being reported in the media[1]. That's better than nothing, but why can't the courts (that approve the settlement) have a web site that links to these? Or, as a condition of the settlement, require the company (Facebook in this case) to link to it?
I know lawyers are good at law, not IT security, and I realize this is how it's typically done, but it's still a very poor practice, and it needs to change.
(In this particular case, it's also ironic because the case is about poor practices regarding data security!)
---
[1] And this one has been, including very large news outlets, so I feel pretty confident it's legitimate.
I very much agree with this. Gmail seems to put every single class action suit email in my spam folder (probably because the domain that they come from are brand new, so understandable). Then the website always asks for a lot of personal information and sometimes bank routing numbers (!!). Maybe there could be subdomains on state gov't websites that are allocated for class action suits (tho that might still trigger spam detection)?
Something similar happened to me when I went to check the balance on a prepaid visa the other day. I got redirected to a bizzare URL and an ad riddled page. I had to do a couple of takes to make sure I was at the right place.
Interestingly, some time ago as part of my job I tested this out -- how effective is a fake breach settlement website / notification as a phishing vector? It turns out, to my surprise, not very. You can't harvest anything particularly juicy beyond basic PII without arousing a lot of suspicion, and as far as vectors for harvesting basic PII, more "normal" approaches are a lot more effective.
Outside of very limited circumstances (e.g. when everyone is really angry, Hello Equifax!), the average person is remarkably uninterested in filling out data in return for an unknown amount of money, at some nebulously undefined future date, that is likely to be somewhere between $7 and $0.
> You are included in this Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive.
If I don’t live in USA, but used Facebook on US soil, am I eligible?
Sounds like yes?
The form itself says:
> Did you reside in the United States at any time between May 24, 2007 and December 22, 2022, inclusive?
I mean, some people live in hotels. Or in tents. Or a sidewalk. Or in RVs. The IRS has its own rules on “residence” but that’s usually measured in hundreds of days, but here it’s “any”
79 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadThis is so unfair, I want my $1-$5 damnit!
edit: citation- https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-facebook-priv...
In these kind of cases, only lawyers make a windfall.
In my opinion, in these type of cases, the amount should be directly correlated to how much revenue the company generated from the sale of the data. If the sale of my data is deemed illegal/unethical/etc, then I should reap all financial benefits plus damages.
What's stopping FB from just continuing this practice and just upping their costs to their customers to include this added "cost" of doing business?
My understanding of the current model is that if {profit} - {legal fees} > {calculated damages settlement}, there's zero incentive not to break the law.
Generally, class actions can include changes in behavior as part of the settlement. Class actions also pave the way for bigger class actions if the behavior isn’t changed, especially since they often negotiated by claiming to have already spent resources fixing the issue and their claims and the settlement have to pass judicial approval.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system.
Mob justice
But people constantly accept abuse and then forget about it.
While mostly true, I've made four figures over the last five years from these kinds of lawsuit settlements. All of them from cases of companies either violating my privacy rights, or data breaches.
I've made hundreds of dollars from Facebook alone.
> Only U.S. users are eligible for a payment.
So, less than 200 million, for the record. But, that does not change the substance of your point.
I am starting to think this is by design. Congress is full of lawyers and they probably make laws for lawyers. If I were in charge I probably would make laws that benefit engineers.
It's really messed up.
The upside is there is a big incentive for law firms to punish companies that stray from the law, which surely helps keep these companies more compliant than they otherwise would be.
I really feel like these don't. This is what, a fraction of a fraction of their revenue? And it took how many years for it to get to this point? Let me know when governments have stopped being chickenshit and start threatening with substantial revenue amounts, and better yet, jail time for execs.
For instance, Albert Dytch [0] was a party to HUNDREDS of lawsuits, seeking ADA violations for places he essentially went to only with the purpose of finding something wrong to sue for. Why isn't that money distributed across the affected disabled people rather than one guy and his lawyer? The incentives are perverse.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-d...
Subscribe for more content & receive my free ebook to learn how you can start living your best life and make millions off class action lawsuits! /s
Opt-out should be the default state.
We need a better legal system. We need to end the lock hold lawyers have the system. It's entirely too expensive. Allow anyone to practice law. Ban complex judge and lawyer speak.
Did this read strange to anyone else? Did Trump really break people’s brains like this?
The whole point of supporting Trump for a lot of these people was simply the delightful thrill of having gained a pet bully that could inflict some form - any form - of grief on people they didn't like, with all the blowback going to the pet and none to themselves.
The same motivation that drives rolling coal on EVs and brandishing assault rifles in public: addiction to petty displays of imagined power over others.
Or why fines never include at least the profit (let alone income) from illegal activities PLUS a fine?
Anyone can try filing a similar lawsuit in their local jurisdiction, but there's no guarantee that you'll win if your country's laws are different.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised?
"System Currently Unavailable We apologize for the inconvenience, but the system is currently unavailable. Please try again later. Thank you."
Right now we get some special web site that's like FooCompanyBarIssueSettlement.com, which is descriptive, but how do we know it's not some phishing site?
The site itself always says it's the official site and gives a case number, but there's nothing stopping a fake site from doing those things.
Right now we have to rely on it being reported in the media[1]. That's better than nothing, but why can't the courts (that approve the settlement) have a web site that links to these? Or, as a condition of the settlement, require the company (Facebook in this case) to link to it?
I know lawyers are good at law, not IT security, and I realize this is how it's typically done, but it's still a very poor practice, and it needs to change.
(In this particular case, it's also ironic because the case is about poor practices regarding data security!)
---
[1] And this one has been, including very large news outlets, so I feel pretty confident it's legitimate.
Outside of very limited circumstances (e.g. when everyone is really angry, Hello Equifax!), the average person is remarkably uninterested in filling out data in return for an unknown amount of money, at some nebulously undefined future date, that is likely to be somewhere between $7 and $0.
But I don't see something called "General Account Settings" after I go to "Account > "Settings and Privacy".
I looked around, and I couldn't find my username anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdF_Vo4B6Ms
You don't get to rob a bank and settle for less than you took.
If I don’t live in USA, but used Facebook on US soil, am I eligible?
Sounds like yes?
The form itself says:
> Did you reside in the United States at any time between May 24, 2007 and December 22, 2022, inclusive?
If I stayed a night, that’s “any time”???