Hello, Believe it or not, I'm an attorney. I'm working on a class action lawsuit against SONY with respect to the over 100 million users who had their personal info stolen. This is not a joke. In class action suits, we need a person to represent each state. Those representatives are called class reps. I need class reps from as many states as I can get. Sometimes class reps don't do anything. Sometimes they get deposed. Sometimes they are awarded a few grand extra for their time. It varies from case to case. Please PM me if you'd like to be a class rep for your state. All PMs will be kept confidential by me, and I expect you all to keep my real identity confidential as well (yeah, that sounded weird, but I really like to be anonymous on the internet). Again, this is not a joke. I can answer your questions privately via PM or on this thread. Thanks yall!
I had heard there was a recent ruling that substantially limited class action lawsuits. I haven't read the decision. Is that really what has happened?
That ruling doesn't apply to all class action suits. The Supreme Court just ruled that, and of course, I'm paraphrasing, that credit card companies can force you to go to binding arbitration even if State Law says you don't have to. When you sign up for a credit card, the fine print says that if you got a problem, you can't sue and you gotta go to arbitration. Some states have ruled that those provisions are unconscionable and allow lawsuits. The Supreme Court said that the States had no right to pass those laws. That ruling wouldn't affect the SONY class action. If it did, I wouldn't be working on it.
In general, I don’t see why Sony’s failure means I should sign up to financially reward lawyers who swoop in after the fact. Lining your pockets doesn’t un-hack PSN/SOE/Qriocity. Certainly doesn’t get my personal information back. But I hope you scare the hell out of them anyway.
Look, I'm not gonna argue against the assertion that lawyers make a lot of money from class action suits. However, the class usually makes good money too. And it is up to the Courts to decide how much the lawyers make, not the lawyers. And your point about scaring the hell outta them is not insignificant. The fear of lawsuits forces big companies to actually treat their customers with some semblance of respect.
The class collectively makes money, though it’s split with the lawyers. The individual members of the class make maybe a couple of bucks, sometimes get a free coupon out of the deal. An award diluted among so many people might as well not have been granted in the first place. Like I said, I hope you scare the hell out of them.
I didn't take it that way at all. That's what bothered me about the idea of class action suit's being limited. Every limit just transfers more power away from individuals to corporations. I see that as the opposite of capitalism. I think to many Americans don't realize there's a difference between capitalism and corporatism.
The class action is going forward, whether it is filed by my group of lawyers or some other group. And the class action will go forward whether you are the class rep for your state or if someone else is. I'd rather it be us working together on it. And class reps often get a bonus for their time.
$10 instead of $5? I kid, I kid. I’m jaded about the entire class-action process, especially in this instance. I think you’re going to have a tough time proving Sony needs to do more to make up for the situation than they’ve already done. I wouldn’t mind them paying for two years of ID theft and credit monitoring services for whoever wants it, though.
There's a lot more to the story than SONY has let on. This is one of the largest security breaches ever. Sony learned of the breach on 4/19, but didn't inform its users until 4/26. They skimped on their security system so that they could focus their money and energy on new products. This wasn't a "stuff happens" kind of event.
They took PSN offline by 4/20, however. So while Sony’s PR is being its typically terrible self, it’s hard to say that they were being negligent, since, well, PSN was taken offline. What products and services did Sony decide to develop and offer with the money that purportedly could have gone to the PSN? Names, release dates, and prices, please. And you might be able to say that they were being lax because their database tables containing customer information weren’t encrypted, but then Sony will counter by saying that the tables containing credit card numbers were encrypted. Agreed. It’s a hugely serious problem and Sony needs to do more than just give out some free downloads and one month of Playstation Plus membership.
1. It doesn't matter that they took the PSN offline. People's personal information was stolen. They knew it was stolen. They waited to tell their subscribers. Had they told them immediately, the subscribers could have notified their banks, etc. Of course, the delay is really just the icing on the cake. 2. This will all come out in discovery.
Assuming they knew specifically what was compromised, you would be right. Their PR department has said they didn’t know what information was stolen until the 26th, and then they immediately announced it. They’ve reported this to the FBI’s cybercrimes division. Can you even engage in discovery during an active criminal investigation?
Discovery? I actually like that board best of all the new one's.....Staduim is ok, but Kalhoon is just horrible.
Indeed. But they certainly weren’t lying about taking the PSN offline ASAP, as Fin-O and SICK will tell you. I’ll be following the news reports closely, then.
Could "subscribers" still notify their banks once they found out, or since it was 7 days later those people are just screwed and have no way to protect themselves? Aside from the credit card data (which may not have been compromised) and probably birthdays, most of the other info can be found pretty easily with a google search of a person's name (I can't remember he exact site that has all sort of stuff, essentially a phone book online, but it can have photos of your freakin' house ). I'm not trying to say Sony isn't at fault or responsible for X amount of damages to each individual but the amount of "damage" any single person could claim at this time certainly can't be very much IMO.
We’re not arguing about the law, just whether or not his interpretation of Sony’s actions is, shall we say… actionable.
I didn't know where to fit it in until Fin-O made his comment. I'd have put this up in the PoFo long ago if I thought anyone would get it.
