Facebook users have less than a month to claim a piece of the $725M settlement(facebookuserprivacysettlement.com)
facebookuserprivacysettlement.com
Facebook users have less than a month to claim a piece of the $725M settlement
https://www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com/
170 comments
The time period covered is more than 15 years. 187 months.
$35 / 187 months =18.7¢ / month
Seriously? That's all it costs to do this to people?
And it's only even as high as $35 because they're expecting the overwhelming majority of eligible members of the class won't file!
$35 / 187 months =18.7¢ / month
Seriously? That's all it costs to do this to people?
And it's only even as high as $35 because they're expecting the overwhelming majority of eligible members of the class won't file!
Yes. Because let's be honest, what actual harm occurred? "Someone you didn't authorize to know things about you used that information to put together a political influence model that didn't work" isn't exactly irrevocable damage.
The market will not protect our privacy, nor will the law. The only thing that will protect our privacy is to stop giving the data away, and to aggressively combat attempts to harvest it without our consent at the infrastructural level, and probably to stop using the internet so much because the whole machine is one giant data collection, collation, and aggregation engine. It's what it's good at. Facebook can't take advantage of this data if their warehouses are choked with noise data or their data collection bugs are DDOS'd or nobody hires their former employees or the data just isn't there because people are living more local.
But the government? The government will not protect Americans. The theory of harm here is not demonstrated.
The market will not protect our privacy, nor will the law. The only thing that will protect our privacy is to stop giving the data away, and to aggressively combat attempts to harvest it without our consent at the infrastructural level, and probably to stop using the internet so much because the whole machine is one giant data collection, collation, and aggregation engine. It's what it's good at. Facebook can't take advantage of this data if their warehouses are choked with noise data or their data collection bugs are DDOS'd or nobody hires their former employees or the data just isn't there because people are living more local.
But the government? The government will not protect Americans. The theory of harm here is not demonstrated.
Manipulating people using illegal methods to erode democracy is a massive amount of harm to the individual
Apparently, it's worth about 18.7 cents per month per individual.
And that's assuming it was even effective and not just the technological equivalent of casting bones, which experts are pretty certain it was.
Chaos monkeys has a good epilogue where the author talks about the Trump campaign in 2016. His take on it is that Cambridge Analytica specifically was basically just reading tea leaves. But it's indicative of the larger pattern that the Trump campaign was spending huge piles of money on getting the word out and polishing the image of their candidate, far more than the opposing campaign. The opposing campaign bet on Trump being so unlikable that they could save the money and move it down. Ticket to reinforce Democratic candidates other than the president.
They lost that bet, and the outcome of the election is far more explainable by simply asking where money was spent for classical, legal advertising then by invoking any kind of unproven technology that appears to have really not moved the needle in hindsight analysis.
By all means, Facebook can and should be smacked for breaking the law regarding how people's trusted information was moved around. But make no mistake, 0% of this fine is because they illegally disrupted an election.
And that's assuming it was even effective and not just the technological equivalent of casting bones, which experts are pretty certain it was.
Chaos monkeys has a good epilogue where the author talks about the Trump campaign in 2016. His take on it is that Cambridge Analytica specifically was basically just reading tea leaves. But it's indicative of the larger pattern that the Trump campaign was spending huge piles of money on getting the word out and polishing the image of their candidate, far more than the opposing campaign. The opposing campaign bet on Trump being so unlikable that they could save the money and move it down. Ticket to reinforce Democratic candidates other than the president.
They lost that bet, and the outcome of the election is far more explainable by simply asking where money was spent for classical, legal advertising then by invoking any kind of unproven technology that appears to have really not moved the needle in hindsight analysis.
By all means, Facebook can and should be smacked for breaking the law regarding how people's trusted information was moved around. But make no mistake, 0% of this fine is because they illegally disrupted an election.
It gets a lot more expensive when you factor in what the lawyers get paid
Once it's all over, it would be nice to see how many hours the lawyers put into the case vs how much they make off it. In fact if anyone has these stats on previous class actions, I'd be interested to see it. The emotionally driven and ignorant part of me has always assumed the lawyers are walking away with tens of millions off the backs of the victims that always get screwed over, but that's an unfair assessment without actual data to either back it up or refute it.
Should be some kind of maximum % of settlement for lawyers, something like 10% (not the typical 33%+). That way they're incentived for a big payout that the plaintiffs actually benefit from.
>They are estimating the payment will be around $35 per claimant
Is that based on the time spent using Facebook? ~5 years ago I deleted my account, would I only receive 2/3's of the amount?
Is that based on the time spent using Facebook? ~5 years ago I deleted my account, would I only receive 2/3's of the amount?
Yeah, it looks like it's pro-rated:
> The Settlement Administrator will assign each Authorized Claimant one point for each month in which the Authorized Claimant had an activated Facebook account during the Class Period.
(#8 on https://www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com/#faqs )
> The Settlement Administrator will assign each Authorized Claimant one point for each month in which the Authorized Claimant had an activated Facebook account during the Class Period.
(#8 on https://www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com/#faqs )
I believe you deactivated your account like me.there is no option to delete last I checked. The data is intact if you reactivate.
I believe I deleted it, searching shows Facebook provides an option to do either.
> They are estimating the payment will be around $35 per claimant.
Where did you see that exactly? I didn't find it in your linked document.
Where did you see that exactly? I didn't find it in your linked document.
Page 9.
Aha, got it now, thanks! Right in the introduction. I may have skipped through that part to look in the rest of the document.
I wonder how they are preventing the claiming of several payments?
> IF I DO NOTHING
> If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will give up the rights explained in Question 9, including your right to start a lawsuit, continue a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendant and the Released Parties about the legal issues or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement. In addition, you will not receive a payment from this Settlement
How can I give up my rights like this?, especially with regard to a case I may easily not have heard about. I'm in this class, but wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for this post.
> If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will give up the rights explained in Question 9, including your right to start a lawsuit, continue a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendant and the Released Parties about the legal issues or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement. In addition, you will not receive a payment from this Settlement
How can I give up my rights like this?, especially with regard to a case I may easily not have heard about. I'm in this class, but wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for this post.
There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years.
More like
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.
> I then had all the dollar TVs moved to an area at the back of the store and had a new wall constructed to surround this area that could only be entered through a tiny, two-foot-tall door.
> Finally, in between the door and the TVs, I added a live alligator, which would hopefully force customers who made it this far to reconsider their decision to take advantage of the great offer.
https://youtu.be/XbC0-tuYE2o?t=128
> Finally, in between the door and the TVs, I added a live alligator, which would hopefully force customers who made it this far to reconsider their decision to take advantage of the great offer.
https://youtu.be/XbC0-tuYE2o?t=128
Loved that book/movie!
“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
So long and thanks for all the fish!!
That’s why class actions require the assent of a judge. Because they are a compromise between getting justice for the largest number of people, and efficient handling of the cases. It’s imperfect, but so is requiring every one of the millions of individual to file their own lawsuit, or allowing the company to remain liable indefinitely.
Having said that, I assume they are required to make an honest effort to notify affected folks, I got a notification directly in my Facebook notifications a bit ago.
Having said that, I assume they are required to make an honest effort to notify affected folks, I got a notification directly in my Facebook notifications a bit ago.
Is a Facebook notification sufficient? That seems to bear an implication that you're required to have kept using Facebook all this time, despite their misdeeds and general decline in popularity.
They've also been advertising it pretty extensively for quite a while. I signed up close to a year ago I think.
At the end of the day they aren't required to cover every edge case or possible contingency. Like the other person said, its a compromise. If everyone had to file individually, most would never get justice. The settlement gets evaluated for reasonableness by the court for exactly this issue. Not everyone is going to be reachable. For the fraction that aren't, would a reasonable person consider this an acceptable outcome?
At the end of the day its a decent solution to a thorny problem. If there's a better one then by all means propose it to some legal thinkers. But as it stands now, over the course of a very long time legal minds have decided on this and it works alright.
At the end of the day they aren't required to cover every edge case or possible contingency. Like the other person said, its a compromise. If everyone had to file individually, most would never get justice. The settlement gets evaluated for reasonableness by the court for exactly this issue. Not everyone is going to be reachable. For the fraction that aren't, would a reasonable person consider this an acceptable outcome?
At the end of the day its a decent solution to a thorny problem. If there's a better one then by all means propose it to some legal thinkers. But as it stands now, over the course of a very long time legal minds have decided on this and it works alright.
As much as I like being an "edge case", "contingency", "fraction", etc., I can't agree.
Do you have a good reason to believe that we can consider negligible the proportion of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are not aware of its existence and their rights and responsibilities? Can you show that it's probable that they're not in the majority?
The problem may be thorny, but you haven't made a convincing argument that this solution is decent. The law (in some countries more than others) is full of unsatisfying compromise, and not for lack of good ideas.
Fwiw, class actions of this type have been popular mostly in one country and only since the sixties. I agree that it's the status quo and people aren't rioting over it, but that's hardly the consensus of hundreds of years of jurisprudence.
Do you have a good reason to believe that we can consider negligible the proportion of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are not aware of its existence and their rights and responsibilities? Can you show that it's probable that they're not in the majority?
The problem may be thorny, but you haven't made a convincing argument that this solution is decent. The law (in some countries more than others) is full of unsatisfying compromise, and not for lack of good ideas.
Fwiw, class actions of this type have been popular mostly in one country and only since the sixties. I agree that it's the status quo and people aren't rioting over it, but that's hardly the consensus of hundreds of years of jurisprudence.
The rest of your comment is a perfectly valid way of looking at things, so I'm not going to contest it. I think my comment stands and you have a different take, which is totally fine. We don't have to agree. But I did note this section:
>Fwiw, class actions of this type have been popular mostly in one country and only since the sixties.
I presume you're speaking of the US, but just a month ago (went into effect June 25th) the EU opened up and simplified their class action scheme ('Directive on Representative Actions') to make it simpler and easier to file class action suits and largely remove borders and jurisdiction squabbles from the discussion. This US style system was set up specifically because it better protects consumers.
Quoting from the EU themselves:
>However, the consumers affected may feel powerless and hesitate to take legal actions. They might be confronted to obstacles such as the uncertainty about their rights or about which procedural mechanisms are available, psychological reluctance to take action or the negative balance of the expected costs relative to the benefits of the individual action. Collective redress mechanisms, such as the one provided by Directive (EU) 2020/1828 are therefore needed to overcome the obstacles faced by consumers in individual actions.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protecti...
>Fwiw, class actions of this type have been popular mostly in one country and only since the sixties.
I presume you're speaking of the US, but just a month ago (went into effect June 25th) the EU opened up and simplified their class action scheme ('Directive on Representative Actions') to make it simpler and easier to file class action suits and largely remove borders and jurisdiction squabbles from the discussion. This US style system was set up specifically because it better protects consumers.
Quoting from the EU themselves:
>However, the consumers affected may feel powerless and hesitate to take legal actions. They might be confronted to obstacles such as the uncertainty about their rights or about which procedural mechanisms are available, psychological reluctance to take action or the negative balance of the expected costs relative to the benefits of the individual action. Collective redress mechanisms, such as the one provided by Directive (EU) 2020/1828 are therefore needed to overcome the obstacles faced by consumers in individual actions.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protecti...
That’s fine if it empowers consumers. Not if it takes their right to an individual suit away without their awareness.
> Do you have a good reason to believe that we can consider negligible the proportion of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are not aware of its existence and their rights and responsibilities? Can you show that it's probable that they're not in the majority?
It's not really the set of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are unaware of it that is relevant here. The relevant set is the subset of that group that would choose not to be in this settlement and also would individually sue Facebook over the legal issues and factual allegations involved in the class action.
I would expect that most people who are sufficiently concerned over the Facebook activities involved in this class action to actually individually sue would have already done so or at least started preparing to do so long ago and as part of that would have kept track of other lawsuits that overlapped with theirs.
It's not really the set of people who are entitled to participate in this class action but are unaware of it that is relevant here. The relevant set is the subset of that group that would choose not to be in this settlement and also would individually sue Facebook over the legal issues and factual allegations involved in the class action.
I would expect that most people who are sufficiently concerned over the Facebook activities involved in this class action to actually individually sue would have already done so or at least started preparing to do so long ago and as part of that would have kept track of other lawsuits that overlapped with theirs.
>allowing the company to remain liable indefinitely.
Why is a company continuing to be responsible for its past actions problematic?
Why is a company continuing to be responsible for its past actions problematic?
Yea. In Sweden we have something similar but it is very very very limited (so in practice they are almost never used). That results in the fact that you can pretty much get away with doing small damages to a large number of people. Because each person would have to sue on their own (and in Sweden there is no punitive damages so you can only recover what damage you actually had) and it doesn't really make sense to sue a company to recover say 50 usd if you have to pay the lawyer 20 000 usd. So class actions are imperfect but I would say they are way better than not having them and needing to sue individually.
Realistically a judge is the last person who should be making that kind of decision. They are theoretically employed by the state to handle those cases, so they should be making decisions which lessen their own workload.
[deleted]
Naturally, the deadline to opt out was 3 days ago.
By opting out of the class action, you are not bound by the terms of the settlement and can pursue your own separate legal action against the defendant on your own behalf. But good luck...
That deadline already passed, so you can't opt out anymore.
Opting out is the default. You don't need to do anything to opt out.
Not true. By doing nothing you forfeit your right to pursue damages for this. Opting out would have left you the option to sue independently.
> Unless you opt out of the settlement, you are automatically part of the Settlement. If you do nothing, you will not get a payment from this Settlement and you will give up the right to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendant related to the legal claims or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement.
> Unless you opt out of the settlement, you are automatically part of the Settlement. If you do nothing, you will not get a payment from this Settlement and you will give up the right to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendant related to the legal claims or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement.
Because if there weren’t some mechanism that has the effect of severely limiting liability beyond the class action settlement, corporate interests would be unhappy. Keeping corporate interests happy trumps your rights.
Let’s do something for that nickel check smh
Rule 23 is the general procedure:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
IANAL.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
IANAL.
The same way as anything with the government. They decided you don't have rights any longer.
$725M is about two days of revenue. Ouch, that stings! I hope they're ok and can survive to improve. /s
Seriously though, where's the punitive aspect of the system here?
https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
Seriously though, where's the punitive aspect of the system here?
https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
One thing I don't like about these class action settlements is there's no way to easily know if the site you're putting all your information on is legit or not. An attacker could easily make a fake site which could serve as a possible vector for future attacks.
This is really the kind of thing that should be behind a .gov TLD or something of that nature.
This is really the kind of thing that should be behind a .gov TLD or something of that nature.
It's even worse when you look at their privacy policy. Who signed off on this?
https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/Privacy_Policy....
https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/Privacy_Policy....
I never believe privacy policies anyway.
I go on the assumption that anything I ever reveal on the internet will become public knowledge at some point.
I go on the assumption that anything I ever reveal on the internet will become public knowledge at some point.
I've always been surprised that this surprised some people.
it's worse: anything you put on a computer will become public. Paper and pen rule.
Paper can be read, that’s why I whisper all my secrets into my seashell.
I guess you haven't heard about the side-channel attacks exploiting frequency throttling of the echos emanating from seashells.
I just forget my secrets so nobody can know them.
everything COULD be digitized these days. I could put a tiny mic into your seashell.
But physically hiding or locking up your secrets still works.
But physically hiding or locking up your secrets still works.
a properly implemented Secure Seashell Enclave is pretty much proof against most non-state actors though. What’s your threat model?
Until shellbleed comes along.
OK, deal with this:
I keep my seashell in a Farraday bag when I'm not using it. When I am, I put on a Farraday Helmet (tm) so the shell is inside it.
Beat that!
I keep my seashell in a Farraday bag when I'm not using it. When I am, I put on a Farraday Helmet (tm) so the shell is inside it.
Beat that!
The good thing is that when your seashell is spied upon, it only produced a soft lull of white noise putting your surveillers to sleep.
Setting the stage for the next class action lawsuit? Joining a class shouldn't have such privacy impacts.
There is at least a government site that links here: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/notices/facebook-privacy-settl...
Facebook links there if you may be a part of the lawsuit too. I got the notification and so did my girlfriend.
Court should make it mandatory that the website (e.g: facebook) displays the official link on his homepage + .gov tld indeed.
While I do agree, I can already see the trolling on the facebook/google homepage:
<CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE CLASS ACTION ENTITLED: NEED HAIR PILLS? GO TO HAIRPILL.COM>
It's a requirement in France when company loose a trial that users should be aware of (e.g: privacy, etc.). It's not perfect and maybe not immune to "trolling" but it's efficient
Like this: https://www.numerama.com/sciences/28339-google-affiche-sa-co...
Like this: https://www.numerama.com/sciences/28339-google-affiche-sa-co...
> there's no way to easily know
Usually, I go to a source that I trust such as a particular news organization or an actual .gov site in order to verify. Then, I check another source that I trust.
Definitely annoying, but it only takes a minute or two. Honestly.
It’s interesting that you say that it should be behind a .gov or a particular TLD. Have you ever tried to reclaim “lost” money/property from your state’s treasury department? Those sites usually don’t have .gov or a specific TLD either.
For example, for Massachusetts the site is https://findmassmoney.com. It does seem questionable initially lol. But it only took a minute for me to verify that this is the site that the state government site “mass.gov” links to.
I can’t word this properly now but I wonder if the purpose of the url (similar to marketing strategies) is to get as many people to go to the site as possible.
Usually, I go to a source that I trust such as a particular news organization or an actual .gov site in order to verify. Then, I check another source that I trust.
Definitely annoying, but it only takes a minute or two. Honestly.
It’s interesting that you say that it should be behind a .gov or a particular TLD. Have you ever tried to reclaim “lost” money/property from your state’s treasury department? Those sites usually don’t have .gov or a specific TLD either.
For example, for Massachusetts the site is https://findmassmoney.com. It does seem questionable initially lol. But it only took a minute for me to verify that this is the site that the state government site “mass.gov” links to.
I can’t word this properly now but I wonder if the purpose of the url (similar to marketing strategies) is to get as many people to go to the site as possible.
I rather think the naming is so that as little people as possible trust the site, so less people claim the money they are entitled to.
You’re probably right
> An attacker could easily make a fake site
Or hack into the legit sites themselves if their cybersecurity practices are subpar.
Or hack into the legit sites themselves if their cybersecurity practices are subpar.
They also ask for my street address. Big, big, big nope.
I don't need to tell you where I sleep.
I don't need to tell you where I sleep.
Presumably so they can mail you a check?
If I use any of the electronic payment methods I shouldn't need to.
Domains this website wants you to connect to (withtout allowing it to, to there might be even more, if you let it load from all those domains):
facebookuserprivacysettlement.com
www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com
adsrvr.org
js.adsrvr.org
digitaldisbursements.com
content.digitaldisbursements.com
fonts.googleapis.com
google.com
zdassets.com
static.zdassets.comI remember when I started using the web "www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com" would be the only website that you would connect with.
So much crap now....
So much crap now....
Domains that you block, if you don't want to connect to them:
facebookuserprivacysettlement.com
www.facebookuserprivacysettlement.com
adsrvr.org
js.adsrvr.org
digitaldisbursements.com
content.digitaldisbursements.com
fonts.googleapis.com
google.com
zdassets.com
static.zdassets.com
These two comments, in a nutshell, perfectly exemplify the Europe vs USA mentality, socialism vs libertarianism. Top down oversight vs you need to protect yourself because no one will. If only you could draw a gun at these pesky websites! /s
A fella could dream, right?
It would be funny to have a wild west subnet of the internet where ddos and hacking was something you signed s EULA for on the way in…
It would be funny to have a wild west subnet of the internet where ddos and hacking was something you signed s EULA for on the way in…
Ill get the average facebook user (60+ y/o boomer) right on to identifying domain links and how to block them.
No need to make statements characterizing people's abilities based on age, especially since most folks would find blocking specific domains a challenge. I am making this statement based on working with people across all age groups from right out of high school to older adults.
(My sample is not representative, but the bias is probably more towards tech and having a college degree than in the other directions.)
(My sample is not representative, but the bias is probably more towards tech and having a college degree than in the other directions.)
Yeah that's fair.
Sorry for my angry post.
Sorry for my angry post.
The average Facebook user is not 60+ y/o person [0]. 60.3% is between the ages of 18 through 44 according to Statista as of April, 2023.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribu...
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribu...
I wrote it to you, not them. I thought you will find it useful.
Also I don't expect GP convincing HN users to protest or to reach out older relatives, or whatever would help the 60+ fb users, but my comment convincing HN users to not to do that.
Also I don't expect GP convincing HN users to protest or to reach out older relatives, or whatever would help the 60+ fb users, but my comment convincing HN users to not to do that.
>I thought you will find it useful.
That seems unlikely. It come across more as a passive complaint about the comment. A sort of “Why are you bothering me with this?”. I doubt you believe the other person wasn’t aware of blocking abilities, as you provided no actual assistance in that direction either.
That seems unlikely. It come across more as a passive complaint about the comment. A sort of “Why are you bothering me with this?”. I doubt you believe the other person wasn’t aware of blocking abilities, as you provided no actual assistance in that direction either.
Is this real? Looks like the good old scam: Enter your payment method so that you can receive the money, we just have to charge you 20$ to verify your account.
This was my first thought as well. It is linked to from a .gov website, though: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/notices/facebook-privacy-settl...
Give Facebook even more of your personal information to get $35. Lol no thanks.
Yeah, it turns out anonymity starts to go out the window when one interfaces with the legal system.
"Right to face your accuser" and all that.
"Right to face your accuser" and all that.
Yeah I’ve done a few of these over the years and they always look like that/say that.
Scams via credit card are very hard to sustain due to chargebacks.
Pretty confident you can request a paper cheque.
It won't allow you to enter a date earlier than mid 2007 for the question that asked approximately "when did you create your account".
At the bottom it says its perjury if you put any wrong info in. Facebook was around for years by then and was already successful by the earliest date they allow
At the bottom it says its perjury if you put any wrong info in. Facebook was around for years by then and was already successful by the earliest date they allow
Yes, It’s only concerned about the period starting May 2007.
Then the question should be phrased to make that clear: "When did you create your account? (Or enter May 2007 if earlier)"
You can't threaten perjury on a form like this and be sloppy in your questions. If it were a paper form I could at least annotate my answer, but here I'm stuck with the wording they use.
You can't threaten perjury on a form like this and be sloppy in your questions. If it were a paper form I could at least annotate my answer, but here I'm stuck with the wording they use.
> Unless you opt out of the settlement, you are automatically part of the Settlement. If you do nothing, you will not get a payment from this Settlement and you will give up the right to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendant related to the legal claims or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement.
So many people will lose the right to fight FB over this without ever knowing what they lost…
So many people will lose the right to fight FB over this without ever knowing what they lost…
The requirements state "a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022". Is that true? What if you are a United States citizen, but not inside the United States during that period?
What if you are not a citizen, but spent some time in the US during that time? Do you need to have had residence at the time, or just an address, or is just being a tourist sufficient? Do you need to have had an account during that time, or did you need to have logged in during that time? Do you need to have told Facebook about that US address?
You don’t need to be a resident to be protected by US laws. Obviously they’re talking about location and not nationality or residence.
If you select "NO" in any of those questions you get an alert "You are not eligible" so you need to be a citizen and in the US in that time
It's asking “Did you reside in the United States”, which does indeed suggest you need to be a resident (i. e. have a green card I guess?). However, I think it can be more broadly interpreted as “be present in the U.S. at some point”, which also correlates with the class definition: “All Facebook users in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive.”
(I am not a lawyer, take this with a grain of salt.)
(I am not a lawyer, take this with a grain of salt.)
I was wondering the exact same.
Only have to provide all your personal details...again? ;)
For 50 bucks I will tell you my name, birthday, credit card, ms/google/fb id, email and physical addresses.
So far I've come across 2 comments by you in this thread and both are minimizing privacy concerns in an off-hand manner.
- to give that 50 bucks to me you would require some information from me. Just post it here and we'll upvote you, 'k? (You are trivializing access to such personal info. Just post it all here to prove your point.)
- blocking all those sites [your other comment] disables functionality.
- to give that 50 bucks to me you would require some information from me. Just post it here and we'll upvote you, 'k? (You are trivializing access to such personal info. Just post it all here to prove your point.)
- blocking all those sites [your other comment] disables functionality.
You claim that posting personal information on a public site is the same as a bona fide class action settlement site? Please explain how it’s similar.
x: this site wants p.i. from me
y: so what? here you can have everything you need from me [for e.g. identity theft] for 50 bucks!
me: that's the price of a cheap date! you don't appear to value it at all. so why don't you just post it here?
hope that clears it up.
y: so what? here you can have everything you need from me [for e.g. identity theft] for 50 bucks!
me: that's the price of a cheap date! you don't appear to value it at all. so why don't you just post it here?
hope that clears it up.
For 50 bucks Mastercard will probably tell me all that about you too. :P
Seems like a bunch of free money if you're in the US. Sadly, Im not
It usually takes years to get paid anything for these class actions, and then you might get a check for $5
This is very true but sometimes it’s worth it. I got over $3K from the price-fixing eye contact settlement. Normally signing up for these things takes less than 10min and sometimes you hit big. Though in this case I’m not expecting much.
Oh yeah, might as well do it anyways just to see what you get from it. The amount of time is pretty crazy though, at least in my experience.
Totally agree on the time. The contact settlement collected info in early 2020, I got the surprisingly large check 3 weeks ago. Now the pandemic messed with the times a bit but it’s normally years you have to wait in my experience. One day a check for $2.46 comes in the mail and you remember “oh yeah, this is for that XYZ settlement”.
The lawyers however get the jackpot:
`Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund, as well as reasonable expenses`
180M USD to represent the rights of people who didn't ask for your help.
180M USD to represent the rights of people who didn't ask for your help.
It would be good that you can easily claim it but make sure that you just instead donate to some organization like EFF. For single person $5 or $35 is small money not maybe worth the hassle but for charity organization it might be a big amount of money on the table.
Just an idea for those organizations - maybe create some browser addon or more user friendly claim form to easily donate such type of claims to them.
Just an idea for those organizations - maybe create some browser addon or more user friendly claim form to easily donate such type of claims to them.
I got a case of free Red Bull at one point as payment. They said I could have a check for $5 or a case of product, so I took the product lol.
So making and shipping a case of red bull costs them less than $5. Or maybe they tough it would help to drawn the sorrows?
A quick search says it was a four pack of red bull, which retails for about $7 today. Probably pretty close to the same cost, and a brand would almost always rather give you product than cash. People will say "I'll take this $5 and never drink red bull again," they won't say "I'll take this case of red bull and then never drink anymore."
The app development settlement was quite large: up to $25,000 per developer. I bet a lot of people here made a lot of money from that class action.
how do we find this settlement? did it already pass?
Still waiting for my check(s) from a Microsoft settlement back in 2006 that had something to do with NY State. No idea how much I was entitled to, but since I owned several Windows machines during the period in question it should have been enough for at least a few beers.
I just cashed a $68 check from yahoo that I vaguely remember signing up for at some point in my life. I fill the forms out and never expect anything, then one day I'll get a small check out of nowhere and each time I'll be surprised by it
I still have not been paid for my iPhone 6 battery.
These are typically tiny money. You get if you are visiting and used services, etc. For instance, I have gotten like $19, $5, from settlements with SafeExpress, Apple, and a few others. The check comes all the way to India (current residence) by post. I don't cash them, I just keep them as memorabilia.
Not even the entire US, just the ones involved in the class action one from California.
>If you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive, you may be eligible for a cash payment from a Class Action Settlement.
Quote: "A Settlement has been reached between Defendant Facebook, Inc., now known as Meta Platforms, Inc., (“Meta” or “Defendant”) and Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California."
All the best to the rest of non-plaintiffs from US then. May they get some money too, though I highly doubt it.
All the best to the rest of non-plaintiffs from US then. May they get some money too, though I highly doubt it.
This reminded me of a Google settlement, which we only have 2 days to claim.
https://www.refererheadersettlement.com/
I keep getting an "Unexpected Error has Occurred"...how convenient.
https://www.refererheadersettlement.com/
I keep getting an "Unexpected Error has Occurred"...how convenient.
"By submitting this Claim Form, I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that I am the person identified above and the information provided in this Claim Form is true and correct."
What if I say I've been there, but haven't. Will anything bad happen to me?
What if I say I've been there, but haven't. Will anything bad happen to me?
If discovered, you could face a perjury charge which carries a risk of a fine or up to five years imprisonment (I think, that's federal law but this may only be perjury under California law.)
Though, it's probably unlikely you get caught, and unless you're filing scores of forms it's unlikely they'd bother pressing charges.
Though, it's probably unlikely you get caught, and unless you're filing scores of forms it's unlikely they'd bother pressing charges.
I filled my claim out yesterday. The form has a section for deleted accounts, so even if you deleted or recreated account you should be good to go. All you need for the deleted account is some basic info like the email address associated with the account.
What is the settlement for, scanned the page but couldn't tell.
Is this worth filling out by click farms/scammers? Maybe it takes too long to fill out everything? I didn’t see a captcha to slow things down so I guess they could use bots.
Are instagram users a part of this? Or just Facebook proper?
[deleted]
Hypothetically, what laws would I be breaking if I were to file claims on the hundreds of accounts I made for astroturfing in that time window?
i wonder whether a deactivated (but not deleted) account complicates submitting a claim for a "current" account in any way?
What happens if you object to the settlement? To stick it to Facebook for their egregious and blatant flouting of laws.
What if I visited the US for business/as a tourist during this period but reside in EU ? Can I still claim ?
I received a notification on Facebook about this a couple months ago I think. But I'm not even in the US.
If I signed up for this settlement (what feels like) six months ago, do I have to do anything now?
Yeah, and I'm a Nigerian prince ...
Anyway, I used a fake birth date on FB, so probably not valid anyways.
Anyway, I used a fake birth date on FB, so probably not valid anyways.
Yeah you better sign up to get your $13 check!
I've made a few hundred just this year off 2-3 of these things eventually getting paid out. It is a nice free dinner for a few minutes of time.
Not worth the effort for $35.
For $5, $20, $40 ? nope...
Anything for Canucks?
LightBug1(1)
Why US only?
Who is user in USA when FB is american company, heh?
I never trust these things. Suppose you make a claim and you don't know you end up with a flag on your account and then months or years later they'll find a bs reason to close it as a retribution.
The system is broken, because these things are just a cost of doing business for companies violating rights. They suffer no consequences and likely any settlement or fine will just be recouped from higher fees or already being factored in.
I think these things will never change until regulators start taking it seriously. I think if Meta was forced to be closed down or had to close the part of business that caused a violation, maybe other players would have taken those issues more seriously.
The system is broken, because these things are just a cost of doing business for companies violating rights. They suffer no consequences and likely any settlement or fine will just be recouped from higher fees or already being factored in.
I think these things will never change until regulators start taking it seriously. I think if Meta was forced to be closed down or had to close the part of business that caused a violation, maybe other players would have taken those issues more seriously.
They are estimating the payment will be around $35 per claimant. The settlement has not yet been approved; this website is performing no small amount of data gathering which the class action lawyers will no doubt use as evidence that the settlement should be approved.
There are a variety of objections. (Imagine if these could prevent the settlement from being approved by the court and the class action counsel wants to make them go away.)
Some of the objections asked not for more money but for the settlement to require Facebook to change its behaviour or to admit guilt. Some argued the settlement was just a way for Facebook to avoid further discovery. Quite a variety of feedback. Angry Facebook users.^1
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.32...
1. There's also some discussion of another website that takes a 15% cut of the claimant's settlement payment in return for the "service" the operator provides. He is objecting to the settlement because the settlement administrator is rejecting the claims he is submitting on behalf of other claimants. https://claimclam.typeform.com