Mostly agreed. My understanding is the divvying up is not a govt entity, and the judge still has to approve the settlement, which isn’t a foregone conclusion, so it’s not entirely true that Equifax is out of the woods. Also, the reputational damage hits them even if they’re not the proximate actor here.
I, for one, think it's kind of unfair that equifax is being blamed for the contents of communications it had no hand in crafting. Especially when the major organizations like the NYTimes are so unclear in their headline writing about what is actually going on.
I guess we disagree both on that this article was misleading and that Equifax doesn't deserve the blame.
Equifax had a lot of say in how this settlement played out. My guess is their legal team is trying to reduce the number of cash claimants so they don't get the bad press when $.02 checks get mailed out--or there's some other benefit in adding more steps to this silly process. Their legal team is representing their interests. Drawing attention reduces the likelihood this happens in future settlements. Focusing it on Equifax makes the story way more clear.
Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different.
Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different.
I agree those two aren't appreciably different. They are both bad if the writer doesn't make it clear that the team (no matter the name) isn't in the employ or under the influence of equifax in any way.
I guess I just put more responsibility on Equifax itself even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs. This makes me think of the Tylenol tampering in the early 80's [1]. Johnson & Johnson's response wasn't court mandated (what doesn't seem to be mentioned is that it wasn't just a targeted recall, but a wide recall encompassing unaffected product in order to regain trust with consumers) Equifax chose their response to be court-mandated and minimal. Someone chose this representation that's creating additional hoops.
I'm glad to see them citing sources properly. I can understand your concern they're not emphasizing the right party, but I don't think that would really help. Most people think class-action settlements are a joke, which means they don't have faith in the legal system. If Equifax feels like their reputation is damaged after fulfilling their legal obligations, they're free to do more.
I understand Equifax did not hire the Settlement Administrator. I still see Settlement Administrator as an intermediary for the Equifax legal case. Like you are saying, the parties here are the plaintiffs, defendants, and the legal system. I feel like focusing the Settlement Administrator just diffuses blame (for all we know they are just following the terms of the agreement). I think the article appropriately focuses on Equifax and how poorly the legal resolution is playing out.
