The victims benefit in knowing a consequence is leveraged against Sony disincentivizing them from future sedentary practices that might lead to similar future outcomes. As far as I know the government is not criminally prosecuting in any way for the misdead right?
Of course the lawyers make the most money from the settlement and the lawyers defending the corporation that allowed its systems to be hacked, they make money too.
But does that mean that the plaintiffs themselves win nothing? It is short sighted to suggest that the plaintiffs are not winners in the long run. yes, in THIS case they don’t coe out money winners, but what do they gain in teh future? Consumers are the big winners in these cases in the long run because busineses are forced to implement better security measures to protect YOUR privacy data, credit card numbers, social security numbers etc…
If the lawyers didn’t take these cases (at no small expense to themselves), the problems would never get solved.
Someone has to hold corporations feet to the fire. Sure, the costs get passed along to the consumer. But what would you rather have…a cheap product with a high risk of a security breach or a more expensive product with better security?
I partially agree with your viewpoint but the lawyers are the big winners. I would like to see this to a mediated adoption whereby the laws catch up to the breachs much faster so this could be normalized if that makes sense?
Ah, yes. Those altruistic lawyers … always looking out for the little guy … just trying to cover expenses … not a thought for their own pockets … just want to make companies better.
And I’m sure these companies just sit on their hands after a security breach. They don’t lift a finger until the law suit is filed. They don’t care about their customers’ privacy, just about getting sued. Please!
Perhaps we could focus on finding the criminals and throw the book at them. Hackers will always be ahead of any security. What we need is to disincentivize the illegal activity.
Believe it or not, a lot of lawyers go into this business because they are idealistic and really want to help the little guy. Sure, it pays the bills and if you can get rich doing it, that’s all the better because law school is expensive and I’ll be paying my school loans for the next 20 years.
But don’t for a minute think that corporations will change their ways without being sued. They will only change their ways when its more expensive to keep the status quo. Don’t think the corporations will be so altruistic to change just because it’s the right thing to do. Corporations answer to their shareholders, not to their customers.
You’re kidding, right? Corporations ONLY change for threat of being sued? What about showing their customers that they are better then their competitors?
Corporations can “do the right thing” without fear of being sued if they can show to their customers the good they are doing. Good PR = more customers for them in the long run.
Plaintiffs attorneys and defense attorneys love cases like these since they both get paid. If the Plaintiffs win, they take a huge chunk out to cover their expenses. Defendants attorneys can do the billable hour thing with their client.
I concede that not all lawyers are bottom dwellers. But those that are out for the little guy don’t rake in millions of dollars when their clients get next to nothing. Those that bring these class actions are out for themselves and they probably hope companies don’t get better so they can sue them again.
I didn’t say companies are altruistic. If companies don’t keep their customers happy, they will lose those customers and thus make their shareholders unhappy. They’re in it for the money but with dissatified customers, they won’t make any. They do the right thing to keep their customers.
I have seen cases where 100+ companies were sued in a class action. There was no evidence that any one company had a product that would harm the plaintiff and no records of purchase of a product that was produced. All of the companies had to defend themselves, hire expensive Defense Attorneys and then settle for what they could to avoid more legal fees. This is called shaking down an industry. $25,000 to $50,000 per pop and pretty soon you are talking about serious money. Serious tort reform and throwing out frivolous claims and making plaintiffs pay all court costs if they lose might slow this down a little.
I love your article and much like the locust that are singing in MO they have been quite for 13 years but very loud now. With the “changes in the wind” with the Cyber attacks that we will see it will be the new lawyer boom of the century. Can we spell Tort Reform?
Great article.
IF we were smart we would create the IP to sell to the lawyers and create the classes to teach them the ins and outs of the Cyber attacks that will occur so they can make more money and then there would be a winner for selling the classes to all of them!
The victims benefit in knowing a consequence is leveraged against Sony disincentivizing them from future sedentary practices that might lead to similar future outcomes. As far as I know the government is not criminally prosecuting in any way for the misdead right?
Really?! It’s the lawyers who benefit?! Anyone surprised?
Meanwhile prices go up to cover the settlements and increased insurance premiums. So who loses?
Dumbest. Question. Ever.
OK, now the Other Point of View:
Of course the lawyers make the most money from the settlement and the lawyers defending the corporation that allowed its systems to be hacked, they make money too.
But does that mean that the plaintiffs themselves win nothing? It is short sighted to suggest that the plaintiffs are not winners in the long run. yes, in THIS case they don’t coe out money winners, but what do they gain in teh future? Consumers are the big winners in these cases in the long run because busineses are forced to implement better security measures to protect YOUR privacy data, credit card numbers, social security numbers etc…
If the lawyers didn’t take these cases (at no small expense to themselves), the problems would never get solved.
Someone has to hold corporations feet to the fire. Sure, the costs get passed along to the consumer. But what would you rather have…a cheap product with a high risk of a security breach or a more expensive product with better security?
You get what you pay for.
I partially agree with your viewpoint but the lawyers are the big winners. I would like to see this to a mediated adoption whereby the laws catch up to the breachs much faster so this could be normalized if that makes sense?
Ah, yes. Those altruistic lawyers … always looking out for the little guy … just trying to cover expenses … not a thought for their own pockets … just want to make companies better.
And I’m sure these companies just sit on their hands after a security breach. They don’t lift a finger until the law suit is filed. They don’t care about their customers’ privacy, just about getting sued. Please!
Perhaps we could focus on finding the criminals and throw the book at them. Hackers will always be ahead of any security. What we need is to disincentivize the illegal activity.
Believe it or not, a lot of lawyers go into this business because they are idealistic and really want to help the little guy. Sure, it pays the bills and if you can get rich doing it, that’s all the better because law school is expensive and I’ll be paying my school loans for the next 20 years.
But don’t for a minute think that corporations will change their ways without being sued. They will only change their ways when its more expensive to keep the status quo. Don’t think the corporations will be so altruistic to change just because it’s the right thing to do. Corporations answer to their shareholders, not to their customers.
You’re kidding, right? Corporations ONLY change for threat of being sued? What about showing their customers that they are better then their competitors?
Corporations can “do the right thing” without fear of being sued if they can show to their customers the good they are doing. Good PR = more customers for them in the long run.
Plaintiffs attorneys and defense attorneys love cases like these since they both get paid. If the Plaintiffs win, they take a huge chunk out to cover their expenses. Defendants attorneys can do the billable hour thing with their client.
I concede that not all lawyers are bottom dwellers. But those that are out for the little guy don’t rake in millions of dollars when their clients get next to nothing. Those that bring these class actions are out for themselves and they probably hope companies don’t get better so they can sue them again.
I didn’t say companies are altruistic. If companies don’t keep their customers happy, they will lose those customers and thus make their shareholders unhappy. They’re in it for the money but with dissatified customers, they won’t make any. They do the right thing to keep their customers.
I have seen cases where 100+ companies were sued in a class action. There was no evidence that any one company had a product that would harm the plaintiff and no records of purchase of a product that was produced. All of the companies had to defend themselves, hire expensive Defense Attorneys and then settle for what they could to avoid more legal fees. This is called shaking down an industry. $25,000 to $50,000 per pop and pretty soon you are talking about serious money. Serious tort reform and throwing out frivolous claims and making plaintiffs pay all court costs if they lose might slow this down a little.
I love your article and much like the locust that are singing in MO they have been quite for 13 years but very loud now. With the “changes in the wind” with the Cyber attacks that we will see it will be the new lawyer boom of the century. Can we spell Tort Reform?
Great article.
IF we were smart we would create the IP to sell to the lawyers and create the classes to teach them the ins and outs of the Cyber attacks that will occur so they can make more money and then there would be a winner for selling the classes to all of them!