Another Equifax Class Action Suit

[elim]

Just received my notice (Jenkins vs EQ) which will pay 18 months of EQ Credit Watch Gold ($270 value) ehh.

You may be a member of the settlement class in which theplaintiff's allege EQ violated FCRA by posting Public Record info (tax liens, judgements, BK's etc.) without identifying vendor(s) it employed to gather info from courthouses and government offices.

https://eclaim.kccllc.net/caclaimforms/eqj/home.aspx

[susieqj]

I also received a post card. I will be signing up for sure that I can get the free monitoring service.

[cuthatcard]

I have a paid judgement on the EQ report that only states the "Court and case number". 

Don't recall, as of this day, (Sept 3rd), of receiving a card in reference to this. 

Because it has the court and case number,  does this disqualify me as a participant ?

Sure would be handy !

[susieqj]

Hi Cuthatcard,

OP and I received postcards, there is a phone number in the link OP posted. I would say to call the know to see if you are quaify.

[cuthatcard]

Thanks, I'll call in the morning!

[RobertEG]

A member of the settlement class is defined in the agreement as any consumer in the U.S. who has, within the last two years, received a consumer report that included public record information in the report.

Simply having public record information in your file would not qualify you as a class member unless you received a credit report within the last two years that included public record information.

Unless you received an actual credit report, there is no issue of lack of notice to the consumer that a vendor was involved in inclusion of the public record information in their credit report.

[Anonymous]

---

@elim wrote:

Just received my notice (Jenkins vs EQ) which will pay 18 months of EQ Credit Watch Gold ($270 value) ehh.

You may be a member of the settlement class in which theplaintiff's allege EQ violated FCRA by posting Public Record info (tax liens, judgements, BK's etc.) without identifying vendor(s) it employed to gather info from courthouses and government offices.

https://eclaim.kccllc.net/caclaimforms/eqj/home.aspx

---

Yeah, I just got one of these too. Pretty crappy settlement, if you ask me. Made me wonder if it was just a cheesy attempt at promoting their monitoring service, but it does appear to be a legit case. The lawyer that accepted that settlement ought to be shot.

[cuthatcard]

I have received report of this 2 months ago while looking at my report online.
Does this apply ?

[RobertEG]

The attorney detailed his reasons to the court when he submitted the proposed agreement.

His primary reason was that future determination of any actual damages would be very difficult, requiring subjective determination of any adverse impact of the consumer not knowing that a vendor was involved in the collection of the public record information. 

An addtional reason was the sheer size of the settlement class, involving millions of consumers.

It is, in my opinion, a very reasonable agreement on behalf of the broad class of consumers involved.

The CRAs have admitted no fault, and have voiced similar concerns about difficulties in assessing any actual damages based on the subjective nature of any such claim, and the breadth of the class.

[cuthatcard]

Well...why don't the CRA's delete this information if it's been challenged and this "settlement "applies to those. ..going back ?

What about those of us...going forward with the SAME information on our reports ?
Are we just stuck with it ?