Facebook will pay more than $300 each to 1.6M Illinois users in settlement(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Facebook will pay more than $300 each to 1.6M Illinois users in settlement
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/illinois-facebook-users-to-get-more-than-300-each-in-privacy-settlement/
71 comments
>The legal firms representing the plaintiffs asked to get about $110 million of the settlement money.
>And there it is.
Would you rather that there's no profit motive, and they don't get sued at all?
>And there it is.
Would you rather that there's no profit motive, and they don't get sued at all?
No, and I did not intend to suggest that.
I naively believed that class action lawsuits required at least some amount of actual harm/fraud to individuals.
I naively believed that class action lawsuits required at least some amount of actual harm/fraud to individuals.
The people chose to live in Illinois where they are protected from something. Whether you agree or disagree with that something is besides the point.
Besides what point? I started the thread making the point that I don’t agree with that “something”, so no I’m still very much on point.
At least in this class action suit the members of the class are getting $338. A decent amount of money. Not just some $10 coupon the company would have been happy to send you for free.
That’s the driving factor for many consumer lawsuits against companies
That is how class action lawsuits always work though; Facebook is an obvious target for breaking the law here for many reasons, but I would say their scale (being the largest) and their ability to profit more efficiently than most other services contributed greatly to it. I'm happy the users get paid directly here rather than the money going to a barely-related government agency, as they were the ones whose privacy was breached illegally.
[deleted]
The law requires other social media services get consent too.
Photo library apps can recognize faces locally.
The law Facebook broke is designed to prevent tangible harm.
Class actions are designed to make unprofitable cases profitable. $110M seems excessive but it's only 16% of the settlement.
Photo library apps can recognize faces locally.
The law Facebook broke is designed to prevent tangible harm.
Class actions are designed to make unprofitable cases profitable. $110M seems excessive but it's only 16% of the settlement.
16% unusually low for a class action suit.
Not to play into the metaphor, but that feels a little like saying every brand of cigarettes is dangerous, why should Marlboro take heat?
Sure, it may not literally kill you, but I think a lot of people agree that ubiquitous data harvesting is not great. Illinois took a small stand against that with its biometric data law.
Sure, it may not literally kill you, but I think a lot of people agree that ubiquitous data harvesting is not great. Illinois took a small stand against that with its biometric data law.
[deleted]
I don't quite agree that this is a meaningless or trivial violation of Illinois law, but let's set that aside.
The fact that end users actually get anything more than a few dollars is what's actually shocking to me. Usually it's a case of the lawyers keeping near 80-90% and the rest of the pittance is allocated to administrative overhead, with a few pennies thrown to plaintiffs that weren't actually driving the lawsuit. Or then the payout (if it's big) goes to the state or federal coffers, is another one, with victims seeing no compensation at all. I am actually very genuinely curious about how they managed to get even a $100+ payout to those affected.
The fact that end users actually get anything more than a few dollars is what's actually shocking to me. Usually it's a case of the lawyers keeping near 80-90% and the rest of the pittance is allocated to administrative overhead, with a few pennies thrown to plaintiffs that weren't actually driving the lawsuit. Or then the payout (if it's big) goes to the state or federal coffers, is another one, with victims seeing no compensation at all. I am actually very genuinely curious about how they managed to get even a $100+ payout to those affected.
"The "tangible" damages to all these users is not clear to me."
The Illinois Supreme Court decided there is no need to claim actual damages. As the article clearly states, there are statutory damages.1 You might think of these as like a fine you pay everytime you violate Illinois privacy law.
1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/victory-illinois-supre...
Certainly we can be cynical about class actions. Class action lawyers handling cases with millions of class members probably care about individual class members as much as over-compensated Facebook employees care about individual Facebook users (or internet users Facebook spies on in general).
One difference is lawyers are regulated, licensed professionals who have to follow ethics rules, while Facebook employees implementing and deploying privacy-violating technology for profit are under no such restrictions.
Imagine if lawyers could use all the personal, confidential information they see in the course of their work with clients to finance an online "platform" for targeted advertising. Knowing so much about people's personal lives, they could pass on "relevant ads" to clients. Perhaps they could even promise that their services would "always be free". Fortunately, they can't. However, Facebook can.
The Illinois Supreme Court decided there is no need to claim actual damages. As the article clearly states, there are statutory damages.1 You might think of these as like a fine you pay everytime you violate Illinois privacy law.
1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/victory-illinois-supre...
Certainly we can be cynical about class actions. Class action lawyers handling cases with millions of class members probably care about individual class members as much as over-compensated Facebook employees care about individual Facebook users (or internet users Facebook spies on in general).
One difference is lawyers are regulated, licensed professionals who have to follow ethics rules, while Facebook employees implementing and deploying privacy-violating technology for profit are under no such restrictions.
Imagine if lawyers could use all the personal, confidential information they see in the course of their work with clients to finance an online "platform" for targeted advertising. Knowing so much about people's personal lives, they could pass on "relevant ads" to clients. Perhaps they could even promise that their services would "always be free". Fortunately, they can't. However, Facebook can.
> One difference is lawyers are regulated, licensed professionals who have to follow ethics rules
LOL
LOL
Seriously though, lawyers are basically never sanctioned or disbarred, and the level of misbehavior required to invite sanctions is extremely high.
So it's an effective deterrent? What matters is there's a recognized process for it.
What does Facebook call doing something profitable that crosses a legal or ethical boundary before their competitors can do it?
Promotable innovation, probably.
What does Facebook call doing something profitable that crosses a legal or ethical boundary before their competitors can do it?
Promotable innovation, probably.
Maybe lawyers are operating under mutually assured destruction? You sue me I’ll sue you. You find evidence, I’ll say the evidence needs to be thrown out.
I don’t know if they operate with impunity.
Compare it to tech, where it’s basically ‘you signed the TOS’, and the discussion ends there. We have yet to see a case where someone argues ‘Your TOS was misleading’, which would be the watershed case we’d need to establish some precedent.
I don’t know if they operate with impunity.
Compare it to tech, where it’s basically ‘you signed the TOS’, and the discussion ends there. We have yet to see a case where someone argues ‘Your TOS was misleading’, which would be the watershed case we’d need to establish some precedent.
There are some crazy high requirements to become a lawyer though.
Easier to become a lawyer than a Facebook or similar sized tech co?
You had me until that last paragraph. Facebook doesn’t steal confidential information, but I don’t want to belabor that point.
Otherwise, thanks. I feel less unsettled now.
Otherwise, thanks. I feel less unsettled now.
Not "steal", but "use". (Facebook does not have to "steal", people give their information to the Facebook middleman willingly.)
Why are WhatsApp communications encrypted. What can they be used for. Who can use them. Note also that "use" and "disclose" may be two different things. Something like scanning peoples' Gmail might be an example of "use" without "disclosure".
There are only two other states that have a law similar to the one in Illinois.
Why are WhatsApp communications encrypted. What can they be used for. Who can use them. Note also that "use" and "disclose" may be two different things. Something like scanning peoples' Gmail might be an example of "use" without "disclosure".
There are only two other states that have a law similar to the one in Illinois.
The legal firms taking the case of the plaintiffs took on risk, normally when you take on risk and succeed you should be rewarded.
What’s the downside risk of losing this case?
The cost of paying a bunch of lawyer's salaries for months on end...
The benefit of class actions isn’t the money paid to the plaintiff, it’s the money taken from the defendant. The money could be set on fire and the judgment would still be a good thing because it punishes the offender, the problem is that at FB’s wealth even $500 million is a sneeze.
It’s a system that converts greed into (an approximation of) justice. There might be better systems, but it’s not the worst one to have.
The plaintiffs in the case argued that Facebook violated that law when it introduced the "tag suggestions" feature without gaining express consent from users.
I'm going to step out on a limb here and say the outrage police are getting out of hand. Tag suggestions are incredibly useful. If I have a library of pictures (and I do), I want software to suggest tags for them. They're my pictures, FFS.
I'm going to step out on a limb here and say the outrage police are getting out of hand. Tag suggestions are incredibly useful. If I have a library of pictures (and I do), I want software to suggest tags for them. They're my pictures, FFS.
I'm pretty sure it's because Facebook started suggesting that Alice should be tagged in Bob's photos without Alice's consent. They're Bob's photos but it's using Alice's likeness to suggest tagging her without her consent.
Edit: And the law in Illinois is (to quote the article): 'The statute requires any entity that gathers biometric data—including fingerprints, voice prints, "hand or face geometry," and retinal or iris scans—to get informed consent from those individuals whose data it collects'
Edit: And the law in Illinois is (to quote the article): 'The statute requires any entity that gathers biometric data—including fingerprints, voice prints, "hand or face geometry," and retinal or iris scans—to get informed consent from those individuals whose data it collects'
So in Illinois it's illegal to run face detection against my own photo library, the way iPhoto did 5 years ago?
I think the difference is:
iPhoto says "This is a face. Would you like to type in who it is?" And Alice would type in "Bob".
Whereas Facebook uses Bob's profile information to say "Is this a photo of Bob?", leaking Bob's identity to Alice.
iPhoto says "This is a face. Would you like to type in who it is?" And Alice would type in "Bob".
Whereas Facebook uses Bob's profile information to say "Is this a photo of Bob?", leaking Bob's identity to Alice.
From my understanding the distinction is whether or not personal data is being saved, so as long as iOS isn't saving/classifying specific 'faces' it's not illegal.
Sounds like there's a difference between gathering prints (faceprints, fingerprints, voiceprints) that can be used to identify people v. simply identifying that something is a face, a fingertip, or a voice, which is what iPhoto did.
I might be missing something here, but I don't think the usefulness is particularly relevant.
They aren't your faces. The law just requires consent.
Calling names and swearing? Seems like you're outraged. Not them.
Calling names and swearing? Seems like you're outraged. Not them.
Maybe you're forgetting how creepy it was when it first happened, back when cellphone cameras were just maturing past the potato phase? I remember the feeling of shock and invasion when one day, suddenly Facebook's computer started calling me and my friends by name.
That feeling framed all my subsequent interactions with Facebook's burgeoning ad profiling and behavior prediction features, cloaked more artfully by FB after lesson learned not to headline their breakthroughs in computer vision. Boil we frogs on the march to normalization and surrender.
That feeling framed all my subsequent interactions with Facebook's burgeoning ad profiling and behavior prediction features, cloaked more artfully by FB after lesson learned not to headline their breakthroughs in computer vision. Boil we frogs on the march to normalization and surrender.
> suddenly Facebook's computer started calling me and my friends by name
Here's one creepy correlation horror story...
I just started at a new job, so got a new email account in a new domain that I've never been associated with before.
Last week I got an ipad as a gift, set it up with my personal account on my personal domain.
Last few days, I start getting spam from apple on my work email about service offers for this new personal tablet!!
Zero relationship between the accounts or domains!
The only possible explanation is they're correlating the IP address and going by that. Very creepy.
Here's one creepy correlation horror story...
I just started at a new job, so got a new email account in a new domain that I've never been associated with before.
Last week I got an ipad as a gift, set it up with my personal account on my personal domain.
Last few days, I start getting spam from apple on my work email about service offers for this new personal tablet!!
Zero relationship between the accounts or domains!
The only possible explanation is they're correlating the IP address and going by that. Very creepy.
I stopped using Facebook when I was looking around the HTML tags for an image (can't recall why) and noticed it listed keywords for the image. The keywords were lacking context and only mentioned objects and weather, so it was obvious the user didn't assign them. Facebook logging what's in photos is creepy enough, but the fact it was happening in the background was the worst.
Those are alt tags and useful information for people with low vision who use screen readers
That's fine, as long as the people whose biometric profiles facebook creates have consented.
I think you'll find that by uploading them to Facebook, they are Facebook's pictures as well, to a substantial and meaningful degree.
$110M for the lawyers is absurd. We as a country need to disincentivize lawyers from filing lawsuits like this. There should be a limit based on how many hours they work, etc. Lawyers fees should be negotiated on top of the settlement, it's one of the reasons why our country is the way it is, lawyers trying to make a huge payday.
Yes, it's a huge sum. But why would you want to limit someone else's income? It's not a taxpayers money. It wasn't obtained by corrupting an official. It was a fair deal between two parties and a process won in a court.
Of course, the excessive complexity of the legal system is one of the reasons why lawyers get compensated so lavishly. But maybe that should be disturbing, rather than someone else's fairly earned income?
Of course, the excessive complexity of the legal system is one of the reasons why lawyers get compensated so lavishly. But maybe that should be disturbing, rather than someone else's fairly earned income?
If they lose, you pay nothing.
If they win, you get $540 million, they get $110 million.
I would take that deal in a heartbeat.
If they win, you get $540 million, they get $110 million.
I would take that deal in a heartbeat.
Orrrr you can lead with an example and become the most awesome lawyer for pennies. Show everyone in practice how it's done.
That's an interesting balancing problem, because if you disincentivize it too much, Facebook can afford to own all the lawyers (so to speak) and grease their wheels enough (or intimidate them away) that nobody of any consequential skill will pursue the cases (and this is where someone argues that the government should do it instead and it should all be a public legal effort; which is where I point out that Facebook, Google, Amazon etc. are deep in bed with the government). Further, when going after monster corporations it can be both physically dangerous to your well-being and career threatening, so the financial reward should be there to take on a trillion dollar company with tens of billions in annual profit and extreme political clout.
Any lawyer willing to try to cut into these extraordinarily evil companies, I say give them the money. The lawyers are being compensated like SEC whistleblowers in a modern war against vast human rights violations, they're mercenaries in a conflict and should probably be compensated as such when they achieve big results.
Any lawyer willing to try to cut into these extraordinarily evil companies, I say give them the money. The lawyers are being compensated like SEC whistleblowers in a modern war against vast human rights violations, they're mercenaries in a conflict and should probably be compensated as such when they achieve big results.
If lawyers don't get paid, they don't bother going to court at all. Do they deserve to be abundantly compensated for their skills and time spent taking on one of the most powerful companies in the history of the humanity? If not - who would bother?
How do they do it in other countries? Is the US the only country in the world that protects their citizens rights? I'm pretty sure that's not true.
However, I do think the US is the only country that enforces laws by "trial by ambulance chasers". Too many ambulance chasers make good money bullying small companies, either through patent laws, minor violations of laws, etc.
However, I do think the US is the only country that enforces laws by "trial by ambulance chasers". Too many ambulance chasers make good money bullying small companies, either through patent laws, minor violations of laws, etc.
They do more regulation up front. In US, instead the system assumes that people will sue each other and that litigation is how details are worked out and creates precedence.
There’s upsides and downsides to both systems. Class actions have the advantage of enforcing rights as long as there is a lot of money involved regardless of whether regulators want to pursue the issue. In other systems e.g. onbudsmen will decide to take on issues or not, but you might not have much control yourself. I guess many systems are more of a mix rather than one extreme. Regardless, no one system is best.
Maybe no one system is best, but the US system is definitely the worst.
So many things about our lives are dictated by precedents set by ridiculous law suits, we don't see it anymore. I went on a bicycle tour in Italy, and the owner was an American. We paid our money and took the bikes. I asked the owner if we had to fill out any release forms, and he said "You only have to do that stupid shit in the US. Here in Italy, we treat adults like adults." The realization of how intertwined our lives had become with the results of all these lawsuits shocked me. It is truly a slippery slope created by lawyers and we are now at the bottom of this slippery slope.
So many things about our lives are dictated by precedents set by ridiculous law suits, we don't see it anymore. I went on a bicycle tour in Italy, and the owner was an American. We paid our money and took the bikes. I asked the owner if we had to fill out any release forms, and he said "You only have to do that stupid shit in the US. Here in Italy, we treat adults like adults." The realization of how intertwined our lives had become with the results of all these lawsuits shocked me. It is truly a slippery slope created by lawyers and we are now at the bottom of this slippery slope.
This isn't a response to a good faith reading of their comment.
There is a vast gulf between 110 million dollars and not getting paid.
Even keeping in mind just how expensive a lawyer's time is, how would say, 10 million dollars not be enough of a jackpot for a lawyer to take on a case like this?
It really does seem like a truly arbitrary and overinflated amount for the lawyers to make out like this. I wonder how many of those 1.6M users would benefit from 50 dollars more than the lawyer will benefit from an extra 100 million.
There is a vast gulf between 110 million dollars and not getting paid.
Even keeping in mind just how expensive a lawyer's time is, how would say, 10 million dollars not be enough of a jackpot for a lawyer to take on a case like this?
It really does seem like a truly arbitrary and overinflated amount for the lawyers to make out like this. I wonder how many of those 1.6M users would benefit from 50 dollars more than the lawyer will benefit from an extra 100 million.
A single lawyer is not getting 110 million dollars. It's going to multiple _firms_, likely with multiple lawyers, paralegals and other staff all involved in the case.
And the rest of the settlement is still 540 million, so 5 times more than what the firms are making. If you divide the remaining 110 million between all the plaintiffs, it's an additional 68 dollars per plaintiff...and that leaves nothing left for the people that actually did the work.
It's the same bad argument that the McDonald's CEO makes 20 million dollars - but he can't pay staff 15$ minimum wage, even though that 20 million split up between the tens of thousands of employees is a one time payment of pocket change.
And the rest of the settlement is still 540 million, so 5 times more than what the firms are making. If you divide the remaining 110 million between all the plaintiffs, it's an additional 68 dollars per plaintiff...and that leaves nothing left for the people that actually did the work.
It's the same bad argument that the McDonald's CEO makes 20 million dollars - but he can't pay staff 15$ minimum wage, even though that 20 million split up between the tens of thousands of employees is a one time payment of pocket change.
I'm not saying a single lawyer is getting 110 million dollars, again reading things in good faith, using common sense, it's simple stuff people.
Lawyer is a synecdoche for the people actively working on the litigation side. Like when people say "I'm calling my lawyer" while referring to a firm with multiple names at the helm...
And the rest of your comment... did you actually read the comment? I said if you leave 10 million for the cost of litigation they got 50 dollars each.
See how there's numbers between 110 and 0?
-
50 dollars is not pocket change for the average person, maybe for people on HN since we work in tech, but I bet relative to the worth of the average person represented, 50 dollars is worth more than the bonuses about to land where the majority of the 100 million that would otherwise benefit them is going.
It's nothing like talking about the McDonalds CEO because the numbers involved are not pocket change if you apply critical thinking, 50 dollars from a one-time payout vs pocket change has very different dynamics for the recipient..
Lawyer is a synecdoche for the people actively working on the litigation side. Like when people say "I'm calling my lawyer" while referring to a firm with multiple names at the helm...
And the rest of your comment... did you actually read the comment? I said if you leave 10 million for the cost of litigation they got 50 dollars each.
See how there's numbers between 110 and 0?
-
50 dollars is not pocket change for the average person, maybe for people on HN since we work in tech, but I bet relative to the worth of the average person represented, 50 dollars is worth more than the bonuses about to land where the majority of the 100 million that would otherwise benefit them is going.
It's nothing like talking about the McDonalds CEO because the numbers involved are not pocket change if you apply critical thinking, 50 dollars from a one-time payout vs pocket change has very different dynamics for the recipient..
Also to add to my previous post, the costs should be approved by a judge and they should be pretty detailed in their billing. So they are pretty much the opposite definition of “arbitrary”.
Are you proposing they do this... which is pretty much in line witj my point?
Or under the impression they do this?
Because if you follow the case info the lawyers based their compensation on a simple percentage from the get-go.
The negotiation from the judge to increase the payout was also based on percentage points.
This approach scales well for smaller cases. People who can't afford representation get it without trying to figure out billable hours.
But as I explain in my other comment, it's worth the courts asking if this scales in a sensible way to cases like this.
Or under the impression they do this?
Because if you follow the case info the lawyers based their compensation on a simple percentage from the get-go.
The negotiation from the judge to increase the payout was also based on percentage points.
This approach scales well for smaller cases. People who can't afford representation get it without trying to figure out billable hours.
But as I explain in my other comment, it's worth the courts asking if this scales in a sensible way to cases like this.
What amount is fair? Is it a percentage of the total? In that case what? Is it billable hours? In that case at what value? What value wouldn’t be arbitrary?
And also consider that it’s true that the users could benefit from 50 bucks more but at the same time they didn’t do anything to receive this settlement. If the lawyers didn’t put the work in, they would get zero.
I guess I just don’t understand why that number specifically is unreasonable. Regardless if a user doesn’t like it they should be able to opt out and pursue a better deal on their own.
And also consider that it’s true that the users could benefit from 50 bucks more but at the same time they didn’t do anything to receive this settlement. If the lawyers didn’t put the work in, they would get zero.
I guess I just don’t understand why that number specifically is unreasonable. Regardless if a user doesn’t like it they should be able to opt out and pursue a better deal on their own.
https://www.law360.com/articles/641797/2-routes-to-hourly-ra...
If your friend came to you and said "I hired a guy to make the home page for my startup and got charged 1000 dollars an hour" would you say "well who's to decide the value of an hour it's arbitrary"?
After all, there are developers making more than the 2 million a year or so TC, and who are you to say how much effort was involved?
Think about if things pass a smell test, apply some lateral thinking...
No one here knows for sure what the litigation cost in terms of billable hours, but 110 million dollars is a lot of money! If the average pay of someone touching this case was $400 an hour, you're talking about man centuries of billable hours (mind you that 6 hours of billable hours out of an 8 hour day of work is not bad for a lawyer)
In reality the average pay is much lower since even if the lawyers were billing a thousand an hour, the people under them aren't anywhere near 400 an hour.
There is absolutely no reason why the court shouldn't attempt to find a market rate for their efforts and pay that... as I linked to start, it's been approached before
-
And on a meta note... all too often I see people go "well if you don't have every fact you must discard any attempt at reasoning about it, it's arbitrary"
Lateral thinking, extrapolation, just building an intuition, all valuable skills to work on.
If your friend came to you and said "I hired a guy to make the home page for my startup and got charged 1000 dollars an hour" would you say "well who's to decide the value of an hour it's arbitrary"?
After all, there are developers making more than the 2 million a year or so TC, and who are you to say how much effort was involved?
Think about if things pass a smell test, apply some lateral thinking...
No one here knows for sure what the litigation cost in terms of billable hours, but 110 million dollars is a lot of money! If the average pay of someone touching this case was $400 an hour, you're talking about man centuries of billable hours (mind you that 6 hours of billable hours out of an 8 hour day of work is not bad for a lawyer)
In reality the average pay is much lower since even if the lawyers were billing a thousand an hour, the people under them aren't anywhere near 400 an hour.
There is absolutely no reason why the court shouldn't attempt to find a market rate for their efforts and pay that... as I linked to start, it's been approached before
-
And on a meta note... all too often I see people go "well if you don't have every fact you must discard any attempt at reasoning about it, it's arbitrary"
Lateral thinking, extrapolation, just building an intuition, all valuable skills to work on.
Lawyers charge hourly fees when clients pay up front. They take a percentage for contingency cases. $110M seems excessive but 16% is normal for a class action.
Your first comment made a good point. Your other comments were needlessly condescending.
Your first comment made a good point. Your other comments were needlessly condescending.
They're not meant to be condescending, it's just exhausting to play the HN game where you can't just make a point and assume people will fill in the smallest blanks...
Instead people will nitpick those blanks to the nth degree and get bogged down in semantics like "well acthually a lawsuit takes more than 1 lawyer"
It's very annoying.
Instead people will nitpick those blanks to the nth degree and get bogged down in semantics like "well acthually a lawsuit takes more than 1 lawyer"
It's very annoying.
Remember that whatever amount you think is fair for all the lawyers (and their staffs involved) must be adjusted by the risk of losing and spending a lot of time and effort for $0. I'm sure the lawyers still come out ahead, but it's not obvious by how much.
I have a friend who does this. He told me the financials over the years as we talked through some of his cases over drinks. His mentor won the big tobbaco settlement which gave the lawyers a cut of $7B.
He ended up making a low SDE2 salary averaged out over 10 years and had to put up significant cash and take big loans from his mentor to cover things.
His mentor had to give back most of the 1/2B settlement split 7 ways when the case was reversed around 7 years later.
This was a massive payday. But the firm put out millions on research / experts in cases over the years. It's very much VC Firm in many ways.
In his first 7 years my friend I think was in the hole $700k for the cases, which on average took 3.5 years. Most of the cases barely made any money or lost money. One of those cases paid off enough that he was able to pay off the loans and get to he made this average salary. I know it was very stressful. He also had a different relationship with debt than I did.
He ended up making a low SDE2 salary averaged out over 10 years and had to put up significant cash and take big loans from his mentor to cover things.
His mentor had to give back most of the 1/2B settlement split 7 ways when the case was reversed around 7 years later.
This was a massive payday. But the firm put out millions on research / experts in cases over the years. It's very much VC Firm in many ways.
In his first 7 years my friend I think was in the hole $700k for the cases, which on average took 3.5 years. Most of the cases barely made any money or lost money. One of those cases paid off enough that he was able to pay off the loans and get to he made this average salary. I know it was very stressful. He also had a different relationship with debt than I did.
I'm fine with this, there needs to be incentive to pursue damages against companies like philip morris and Facebook.
I think local law is absolutely the way to change big company practices. We keep thinking we need to change US or world law to affect privacy practices, but in reality, local laws can absolutely make these large companies re-think the consequences of rolling out something. It might be a drop in the bucket for them, but these stories teach other jurisdictions that they too can fight back.
I mean think about prop 65 warnings. Nearly every box in the US has these warnings because of one state's law. (Not arguing for or against prop 65 here - that's a different issue - but look at what effect it has on the entire system)
I mean think about prop 65 warnings. Nearly every box in the US has these warnings because of one state's law. (Not arguing for or against prop 65 here - that's a different issue - but look at what effect it has on the entire system)
As a reminder that lawyers still run the world, they got over $1M each in the settlement :)
I'm not a superfan of lawyers, but they got 110 out of 650 millon or a little over 16% of the total settlement. For 5 years of work and the very real risk of getting nothing if they lose, that sounds reasonable to me.
For 5 years of work.
Yes important point, but also probably not 5 years of active work. I'm sure they were doing other things, performing some steps and then waiting for others to act, etc. You don't "work" 8 hours to make a crockpot stew
I can’t help but wonder if there was some other driving factor here
The legal firms representing the plaintiffs asked to get about $110 million of the settlement money.
And there it is.