The NY AG, like several other lawyers, pointed out that the contract term isn't enforceable. At the very least, it appears to be a contract of adhesion.
The AG is also pissed about the language, but that doesn't mean he's confirmed it's enforceable.
Yes I don't understand attacking one AG at the defense of one of the three main credit bureaus. One has an oversized market power and the others a government official. One seeks profit and power at a scale few humans ever dream of and the others one of 50 such officials.
To be fair an AG does have plenty of power, but it's the power primarily, of the office. That comes with all kinds of oversight and politics, while the Big Three are just... apes.
You violated the site guidelines by taking this thread into just the sort of flamewar we're trying to avoid on HN. Would you please (re-)read them and not do this again?
If you wish to take issue with the fact I called a political figure a douche, fine.
But I will not refrain from using such language in the future when I feel it's appropriate.
Although, if you want to declare I started what can hardly be described as a flame war just by stating an opinion, you should just delete my account now.
I'm not getting into a nitpick over his alliances to left-wing groups I strongly dislike or that he commonly tries to pull high ranking democrats further left than necessary, etc.
Just like Equifax is trying to get out of screwing the public over as cheaply as possible. Don't pretend they are somehow victims or noble exemplars, or that you aren't just complaining about the status quo because it's politically expedient for you. If you haven't been arguing for structural reforms in how we select public officials then your objections don't really carry any weight.
The AG is also pissed about the language, but that doesn't mean he's confirmed it's enforceable.