Tell HN: We'll pay for you to sue Equifax

[evashang]

YC16 company Legalist is paying for you to sue Equifax in small claims court. We'll get you a complaint, filing fees, instructions.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170914005511/en/Legalist-Pay-Data-Breach-Victims-Sue-Equifax

https://www.legalist.com/equifax/

[ABCLAW]

For individuals considering this, note that champerty arrangements are illegal in certain jurisdictions.

If you get hit for that, you're on the hook, not them. That's explicit in their ToS. Have fun, kiddos.

[xie_alan]

IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? I don't think there's any remotely recent precedent for state-level champerty statutes (the few that still exist) being enforced in a commercial litigation context, and I think this situation is one in which the plaintiffs (Equifax data breach victims) are already planning to file suit, thus not rising to the level of "champerty and maintenance" being applied to frivolous litigation that such statutes aim to prevent.

[ABCLAW]

>IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state?

Nope.

Third party lending as a broad policy trend has certainly opened up over time, but some states still have the restriction, others have reformed it, others call it a different thing and some have abolished it.

Is the risk substantial in your specific case? Maybe not. Maybe it is. Just know there's a risk there and you're the one eating it.

[DeathRabbit]

OK, on the site under the reg info it says to "Verify" you were part of the breach by using Equifax's verification site. Hasn't it already been established that this site is giving (at best) inconsistent results? So if their of-dubious-use tool says I wasn't impacted I have no recourse?

Also, the amounts available in small claims court seems like peanuts compared to my data being "out there" permanently. This is just a general observation--I'm not impugning Legalist with this statement at all. I guess it may seem like small potatoes weighed against the risks, it's not like everyone impacted by this could get appropriate remuneration for the potential lifelong BS caused by this.

[k3oni]

What do you think will come out of the class-action lawsuits and how much do you think people will get per capita after the lawyers are paid?

I have a feeling that in small courts you can at least get more than that. PA for example has a max of $12k claim amount.

[DeathRabbit]

Oh, yes, totally agree that the class action suits will result in a sweet $15 check or something. I guess my poorly phrased lament was just in reflection that even the max payout in small claims doesn't seem like a great result given that this stuff is out there permanently. I read some stats that indicated an average of 330 hours for a person to work through fraud on their credit reports or otherwise clean up an ID theft event.

[jlgaddis]

Note that you don't have to file in small-claims court. Small-claims court was established as a convenient, easier way to handle dispute of (relatively) smaller amounts.

If you feel that Equifax has caused you, say, USD $100k in damages, you can certainly file a "regular" civil suit against them and ask for that amount.

[k3oni]

The other way to deal with this would be to not do anything right now and exclude yourself form the class action. In case something would be to happen you have the option to sue for full face value as long as it can be proven that this hack is related or the cause, but again that is a big if.

And i'm not a lawyer just thinking out loud.

[whataretensors]

Having been a victim of identity theft I'd say that's accurate, if not low. It took me 10 years to clean up the whole thing(and I'm still worried about random letters).

[smsm42]

Except you couldn't sue for potential identity theft - to sue Equifax for damages from identity theft, you'd have to prove it actually happened to you personally, and probably also prove Equifax is to blame (which may ironically be harder the more leaks are out there, as they could always claim it's not their leak that led to the theft but someone else's).

[smsm42]

AFAIK small claims court are pretty informal, and most do not allow one to be represented (as opposed to advised, which is allowed) by a lawyer. So I imagine you come to the court, and the judge asks you "OK, tell me why you are suing Equifax", and you, being true to the promise to tell the truth and fearing perjury, answer "I've read an ad from a law firm which promised me that I can sue them for free and get money from it, so that's the reason I am here in the court today - just trying to grab some money from this opportunity". I would be surprised if the judge would be overly sympathetic. [1]

And since judges probably have seen pretty much everything under the sun, they probably would get the gist of it even if you don't answer in these exact words. And I am not sure judges would also be sympathetic to "auto-lawsuit" setups where you are allowed t generate lawsuit by filling a form without anybody actually ensuring there's a case. And Legalist seems to be advertising "automatic" support - i.e. without even considering if you actually have the case or not. It's basically automatic lawsuit generator. I don't think it'd make judges happy.

Lawsuit financing may be a great idea - I actually like this approach - but turning it into opportunistic money-grabbing mill is probably makes more harm than good.

[1] If you don't believe people really answer like that, check this out: https://wlflegalpulse.com/2017/08/18/food-court-follies-frau...

[Rapzid]

That may be a truth, but it's not the truth and not an answer to the question the judge is actually asking. He'd be probing about the legal basis of the claim, not the impetus that drug you out of bed and into the courtroom on that particular day.

[xie_alan]

That's for sure why people participate in class-action lawsuits against big companies like Red Bull, but isn't the whole point that people have had their privacy violated? I can't see a plaintiff showing up to court and not saying something along the lines of "Equifax lost my data and I want to be compensated."

Maybe Plaintiff John Doe isn't going to be able to exhaustively demonstrate quantifiable material damages, but maybe the court hands out a default judgment.

The real opportunistic money-grabbers here are Equifax...they took their own data breach, which is basically historically unprecedented in its scale, and used it as a way to shill one of their own credit score monitoring products. That, IMO, is despicable. If it's easier to sue these guys for their negligence, so be it.

[smsm42]

> the whole point that people have had their privacy violated?

Possibly, but lawsuits don't work that way - "I feel bad because somebody may potentially have got my info" is not a claim you can make and get damages. There should be legal basis. Now, I'm not a lawyer, and saying US law and caselaw is huge and full of terrors would be an understatement. So maybe one could find some law that justifies it. No idea. But showing up in court and saying "but privacy, your honor!" probably don't work.

> Equifax lost my data and I want to be compensated.

And I want to be a well-hung billionaire with wings. [1] Nobody cares.

> The real opportunistic money-grabbers here are Equifax

There's a lot to be claimed against Equifax. But Equifax being crappy doesn't automatically grant you a victory in court. You have to make a valid legal claim. Granted, small claims courts, as I said, are less formal and allow you more leeway, but even then I doubt that just showing up with script-generated claim and "I feel bad, I want money" would go very well. You are welcome to try and report of course, maybe I'm an idiot and you'd be laughing all the way to the bank instead.

[1] if you recognized the quote, you get 20 bonus points

[xie_alan]

Fair points on the issues of standing — I would assume that a college-educated person with a decent understanding of the relevant case law (gleaned from some of the links below and other MSM articles about the data breach) could stand a decent chance of winning in court. Your mileage may vary, but if a 5 hour time investment could possibly yield a 4-figure settlement, I don't see a problem with filing a case and the worst-case scenario being a loss in court. That being said, since your chances of winning likely increase with how much effort you put into the claim, it's not Legalist that's doing the heavy lifting for you, which also begs the question of why you'd have them file for you in the first place.

[secstate]

Oh god I hate the Big Bang Theory.

[JshWright]

So, "ambulance chasing" meets "webscale"?

[xie_alan]

Better call Saul!

[failrate]

Saul as a service

[SimbaOnSteroids]

JaaS

[quickthrower2]

Saul?

[j_s]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Call_Saul

[matt_wulfeck]

I thought about this, but how do you prove damages? Judges don't like you wasting their time with theoretical losses. The best I could come up with is the cost of credit monitoring ($20 a month) for life.

Does anyone have recommendations for quantifying the damages? Something the judge won't toss out?

Also why does this make us put in the court where we will file? Doesn't it need to be where Equifax is located, and won't it be the same for everyone?

[VectorLock]

I think at the very least the cost of having to do a credit freeze.

That really ticks me off the most about this. These guys collect you information without your explicit permission then when one of them fucks up and that data gets you YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM TO STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING.

[etjossem]

I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice backed by any level of expertise in the law. But if I had to write a complaint for small claims right now, here's what I'd bring up:

--

FCRA § 604. states that "any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other", and lists allowable reasons to dispense a credit report.

FCRA § 607. requires compliance, stating that an agency must "limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604."

FCRA § 616. imposes civil liability for willful noncompliance at a minimum of $1000, even if that is greater than actual damages already sustained.

(a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

..<snip>..

(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;

..<snip>..

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow;

--

This suggests to me that you will be able to seek "actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater", plus any punitive damages the court awards (I do not believe this is generally done in small claims). You would need to demonstrate that the failure to safeguard your information was willful.

[sokoloff]

I think you'd also have to demonstrate that Equifax "furnished your consumer report".

If I have $1000 in cash stolen from my house by someone not authorized to work in the US, I'm not liable for an employer violation for not filling out an I-9 form...

[etjossem]

"The term 'consumer report' means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for [credit]."

It's a fairly broad definition. Per press release, Equifax made a data communication of this info to someone who did not show a permissible purpose under § 604.

I would argue that Equifax had months to patch CVE-2017-5638, but they did not. Their web application continued furnishing parts of my consumer report to anyone capable of running https://github.com/mazen160/struts-pwn.

[jayess]

How do you show "willful noncompliance" if they were hacked?

[etjossem]

Equifax left a critical security vulnerability open for quite a while after it was announced, and confirmed that it was used in the breach.

In a statement, Apache Struts wrote, "This vulnerability was patched on 7 March 2017, the same day it was announced ... In conclusion, the Equifax data compromise was due to their failure to install the security updates provided in a timely manner."

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/media-alert-the-ap...

[sokoloff]

Incompetence, poor judgment, and/or laziness is probably not the same as willful non-compliance.

(I have extremely little sympathy for Equifax here, around any aspect of what they did and did not do. It's still not clear to me though that it was willful by a legal definition/interpretation. I'm quite sure we will find out.)

[takeda]

And monitoring doesn't prevent issues from happening if something happens it apparently takes 330 hours on average to fix it.

[eloff]

I'm not a lawyer, but don't you have to prove that you've suffered material losses to prevail in court? I'm not sure you're entitled to anything just because you've been put at risk for identity theft.

[DeathRabbit]

This can be another service! You pay me some bitcoin to commit ID theft. I do it, create havok all up in your business. Voila! Damage done, now go and sue.

Money to be made all around on this deal.

Seriously, though, IANAL but I think you're right, I've read a couple other statements to that effect, that you'd have a hard time suing for the _potential_ for trouble. And would a judge require you to _prove_ an ID Theft was the result of the Equifax breach or just one of the other, smaller breaches?

[gthtjtkt]

I'd recommend one of the more privacy-oriented coins, like Monero :p

[ceejayoz]

We're all gonna need a lifetime of credit monitoring. Equifax is only offering it for the first year, so figure out what an average lifetime's worth is gonna cost you...

[rhino369]

We are going about this the wrong way. We don't all need credit monitoring. It's just that the type of data they had is no longer secure and shouldn't be used to tie me to a transaction.

Just because someone has my SSN and my name doesn't mean they are me.

Making it my job to monitor for fraud is bs.

[GavinB]

I submitted my data but I'm getting an "unknown request" on the URL https://www.legalist.com/equifax-sent/

Also, it's unclear what court you're supposed to file in. I did some research and, at least in New York, you're supposed to file a claim where the defendant does business. I put my local county small claims court in (New York County Civil Court), but I'm not sure if that was right. Maybe because Equifax is such a big company doing business everywhere I can file in my local court? Otherwise it looks like I would need to file in Atlanta, where their headquarters is.

[neekb]

Pretty interesting article discussing the ability to achieve "standing" in court related to a data breach that doesn't immediately result in a loss:

https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2016/no...

[deskamess]

Any options for previous US residents who are now out of the country?

BTW, what are you giving up when you sue Equifax and win? Does winning absolve Equifax of any liability or need to help you in case of future identity theft?

[xie_alan]

Saw this earlier this morning: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41257576

These guys should be, at the very least, fined by the government for how blatantly careless they were with consumers' PII. I can't believe the credit bureau oligopoly in the United States is this technologically incompetent, but I suppose it's not surprising given the lack of economic incentive to innovate. Hefty fines / settlement payouts should do the trick...

[bllguo]

is the only way to find out if you're affected still that dodgy equifaxsecurity2017.com site? What happened to those accusations of random output?

would love to be able to use legalist but I'm not even sure if I'm a victim

[inostia]

Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected.

[pavel_lishin]

> Basically if you're an adult who lives in the US, you are affected.

How do you prove this in court?

"Your honor, I gave a Dark Web hacker some bitcoin and they said I was definitely affected."

[inostia]

The funny thing is, the Legalist form to apply here: https://www.legalist.com/equifax/#apply-form

points to the Equifax page here: https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/potential-impact/

As far as I remember, you could enter any random information into their form and it will say you were affected. That is the proof that Legalist is asking to provide the basis for the suit.

[xie_alan]

I've had friends enter information into that form and it said they weren't affected. AFAIK the Equifax backend is complete garbage and they've been very careful to disclaim a positive match by saying your information is "potentially impacted." Seems like they have no idea of knowing/proving whether someone actually has your specific information, but can check whether your information resided at one point on the specific server/database that was compromised?

[radvocate]

This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple - if you sue in SC court and win $100, it extinguishes your ability to sue again for new damages. And let's face it, our real damages aren't apparent yet.

Also, SC is probably your worst option, as far as ROI goes. If you want a more strategic sense of your legal options, check out:

http://myradvocate.com/new-blog/2017/9/10/5vpvo8j70gnergoci4...

[devy]

I am a Equifax data leak victim.

How do I know Legalist is dependable and trustworthy so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time?

And small claim court filling fee is only less than $100 (in my state it's $35, appeal is $250 refundable). And maximum claim amount in small claim court in my state is $3000.

Is it worthy for me to trust another 3rd party with my sensitive information to get at most 3k (in reality it will be much less and there is also the fee from Legalist).

I personally don't think this is a useful service AT ALL.

[xie_alan]

Also a victim. I personally would rather get a 4-figure settlement in small claims court instead of a $5 check in five years from a class action.

IANAL, but it doesn't look like Legalist is handling any information that you wouldn't be making publicly available in a court filing were you to do this yourself. As someone who doesn't have the time or diligence to do all this myself, I actually find this pretty useful.

[smsm42]

> so that my personal information is NOT going to be leaked by Legalist again in the future for the second time?

No problem. If that happens, Legalist would be happy to finance you suing them in a small claims court!

[jlgaddis]

Off-topic (but somewhat related, perhaps?) question for any of you who and submitted the form (no cheating, please!):

What type of SSL certificate -- DV or EV -- did the Legalist web site have, if any?

I'm just interested in {whether|how many of} you bothered to look before submitting your information.

(I'm asking because I was reminded of a recent HN discussion about DV/EV certificates and this seemed as good of a "test case" as any.)

[xie_alan]

I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy. I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare. I might be mistaken, but aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities?

[jlgaddis]

> I'd be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy.

Sure. It was a discussion [0] of an article by Troy Hunt entitled "On the Perceived Value of EV Certs, Commercial CAs, Phishing and Let's Encrypt" [1].

(There have been a few other recent discussions [2,3] that also mentioned EV that you might be interested in.)

> I've been looking into SSL recently for some personal sites and the easiest method has been a combination of GitHub pages / Cloudflare.

That seems to be a pretty common setup (for "easy"), as well as static sites on AWS S3, etc.

Most of my sites run WordPress on my own (physical) servers so I can't personally comment on those methods.

> ...aren't EV certs just a cash grab by the issuing authorities?

That seems to be the popular opinion (at least here on HN), though I can understand the desire to use EV over DV in certain situations.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14805233

[1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/on-the-perceived-value-ev-certs-cas...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14749565

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15221119

[clarkevans]

The least Equifax should do is stop charging for monitoring changes, freezing and unfreezing our records.

[smsm42]

Fees for freezing/unfreezing sound like a scam - it literally costs them zero to do this (since they have already made the system for doing it) and given the rampant fraud for which they have little protection - they should just make it easy and free. I am generally very laissez-faire person, but this is one of the cases where I'd probably be grudgingly ok with some regulation.

[radvocate]

This is terrible advice. In litigation you only get one bite at the apple. Do you want to file a claim now for a few hundred dollars in SC court, or wait until you actually have real damages to cover? If you file and win now, you're out of luck with your future damages.

[xie_alan]

My knowledge of identity theft is admittedly limited to TV documentaries...but if your identity is stolen five years from now and the fraudsters rack up thousands of dollars in loans and bills under your name, is there a way for you to link that crime to the Equifax hack? I could see a lawyer making the very shaky argument that John Doe could have had their personal information hacked elsewhere and that there's no evidence connecting the thieves to Equifax.

[civilian]

How much is legalist recommending we take Equifax to small claims court for? $500? 1k?

[jdshaf]

The website says: "File suit and repay Legalist only if your case is successful."

Do I owe legalist their fee if I win, but am unable to collect from Equifax?

[evashang]

Legalist is repaid only in the event you recover money directly!

[basseq]

The website makes no mention of the "complaint" promised in the OP. Is this just litigation finance, or litigation support as well?

[spraak]

From what I understand, there isn't any financial risk for someone using this? I.e. since their payment is contingent on you winning?

[eknight15]

Got a 500 Error after applying

[chaigh]

Hey eknight15, I'm the CTO @ Legalist. mind shooting me the console logs? christian @ legalist . com

[eknight15]

Nothing in console https://imgur.com/a/mXUIC

It takes me to /equifax-sent/ but title is 500 Error

[sguha]

I'm getting the same problem

[agilecanary]

Use https://sentry.io/for/javascript

[0xfeba]

Got the same. It appears to be the redirect after a successful submission.

[muninn_]

How am I supposed to know what court I'll be filing in?

[yang2007chun]

I get 500 too. And there is no console log at all...

[chaigh]

For those getting 500 errors, the issue should now be fixed!

[justboxing]

What's in this for Legalist?

From their home page:

> All legal bills covered.

> Litigation is expensive. Whether it’s attorney’s fees or that expert witness report you need to prove damages, litigation costs can add up. When you’re backed by Legalist, you don’t have to worry about unexpected legal expenses. Focus on growing your business, and we’ll take care of it.

I'm always skeptical of assurances like this.

[evashang]

Litigation finance is like a contingency arrangement - if you file the case and the judge dismisses it, there's no risk to you. But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you.

[spinlock]

FYI - when you dodge the question this way, you look as bad as equifax. What is in it for you? Do you take a percentage of the judgement?

I'll probably end up paying a lawyer to advise me on the best way to get back at Equifax. But, I'm not going to do business with you because you're shady and won't disclose your interest in this case.

[mikestew]

What is in it for you? Do you take a percentage of the judgement?

Just because you don't know how lawyerin' works is no excuse to be insulting. They take a contingency, like every other friggin' lawyer on the planet. (No financial interest, don't know the founders from Adam, yada, yada)

[spinlock]

Con-artists are the only people who want you to think that it's insulting to ask them how they are compensated. I've worked with plenty of lawyers over the years and none of the ethical ones have ever balked at explaining their fee structure.

The class against Equifax is huge and you should absolutely be aware that less than ethical lawyers are going to come out of the woodwork making all sorts of promises so that they can get their slice of what Equifax is going to pay out. The lawyers that I want to work with will either charge me an hourly fee or they will be upfront that my involvement in a class means that I'll be helping to punish Equifax but that I'll be forgoing most damages to do so.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

> take a contingency, like every other friggin' lawyer on the planet.

Actually, there are countries where lawyers don't (and legally can not) take contingency fees.

Not allowed to advertise, either.

[mikestew]

Admittedly that is a U. S.-centric viewpoint incorrectly extrapolated to the world. I'm calling"literary license". Thanks for the correction.

[evashang]

Hey! As you'll find on our website, we take a third of the judgment as a contingency stake, as per our usual practice.

[jellicle]

It doesn't say that anywhere on the website. The language used is specifically vague to accommodate a wide range of fee percentages.

"Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs. Apply now to get a rate!"

[spinlock]

Do you have a link? I looked over your website and I found no information about you fees.

[i_cant_speel]

He did answer your question.

"But if you do file the case and win $1000, we'll recover alongside you"

[spinlock]

That really doesn't answer my question. If I win $1000, how much do I then owe? I'm cool with not recovering anything but I don't even know if my liability is capped at the judgement against Equifax.

It's funny how many people are upset by my comment. The only thing I can say is that, when I hire a lawyer, the point is to have them clarify the law for me and translate it into plain english. If a lawyer won't even put their own fees into plain english, I don't believe they are working for me so I won't hire them.

[traek]

She* [0]

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshang/

[i_cant_speel]

Oops. I thought about that after I submitted the comment, but the app I was using doesn't give me the option to edit the comment.

[asn0]

From their FAQ[1] looks like they take a cut of winnings:

> Only if you win your case is repayment deducted from your recovery. Legalist funding varies from case to case, depending on your case details and our risk assessment outputs.

1. https://www.legalist.com/faqs/

Edit: formatting

[sodafountan]

You only pay if you win the case is what I gather from the site, they're confidant enough that you'll win in a small claims suit against Equifax while at the same time advertising their services.

[LusoTycoon]

If the class law suit wins, they get their share. And it already seems certain to win by now, I imagine.

[evashang]

Just a clarification - while there are multiple class action lawsuits against Equifax, Legalist is funding individual consumers to take action in small claims court. It's faster and you're likely to recover more.

[sodafountan]

It's also harder to litigate on Equifax's part. Often times they just attempt to settle

[evashang]

Absolutely! The only authorized representatives are company officers or lawyers, and many small claims courts don't allow lawyers. So unless the CEO of Equifax attends every court hearing in the country, or unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court, you're likely to recover. (not a lawyer, not legal advice)

[logfromblammo]

Varies by state. Some states will allow an ordinary employee of the company to appear.

My jurisdiction limits claims to $6000 and allows attorneys.

[kd0amg]

unless the judge allows them to move it out of small claims court

How common is this?