TransUnion Settlement To Provide Free Credit Monitoring and Scores

So awhile back I read about on SlickDeals and Consumerist that there was a lawsuit involving TransUnion and they’ve agreed to give 6 or 9 month free credit monitoring and a bunch of other perks to basically every American, but you were only allowed to sign up on June 16th, 2008 or later.

June 16th came and went and I forgot about it, but thanks to WordPress drafts, I knew I had wanted to blog about it.

For a brief overview, you can read this MSN article: Consumers win free credit scores:

Any consumer who had a credit card or a mortgage, auto or student loan, or other open credit account or credit line in the U.S. anytime from 1987 to May 28 of this year will be able to choose from two free TransUnion services for a limited time, according to the terms of a settlement, which likely sets a record in affecting the largest number of people.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago, claimed that TransUnion had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it sold consumer information to businesses for their targeted marketing efforts.

[…]

Seeking to end a class-action lawsuit that’s been pending for almost a decade, TransUnion agreed to offer consumers one of two options:

  • Six months of TransUnion’s credit-monitoring service for free, giving consumers unlimited access to their credit reports and scores, and e-mail notifications when changes occur on their credit reports. The settlement values this service at $59.75.
  • Nine months of the credit-monitoring service, plus access to the credit scores used in insurance decisions, and TransUnion’s mortgage simulator service, by which consumers can see how their credit score affects their mortgage rate. Value: $115.50.

Consumers who choose the first option sacrifice their rights to enter a class-action claim against TransUnion, though they might still bring an individual case, while those who choose the second option sacrifice any further legal claims of any kind in the matter. Consumers will not need to provide a credit card to sign up for either service, and both services will simply end — that is, TransUnion will not automatically sign people up for a paid service, according to the settlement agreement.

There is a third option: Consumers can sign up for a cash payment instead of the free services, but any such payments won’t be made for two years — and they’ll be paid only if there’s money left after any other “post-settlement claims” have been paid out of a $75 million fund set up by TransUnion for the purpose, according to the settlement.

[…]

Eligible consumers will be able to choose their free service as of June 16 by going to ListClassAction.com or calling 1-866-416-3470.

Personally I don’t really have much use for this service. I already can get daily credit scores from Credit Karma (which is based on data provided by TransUnion). I also get monthly TransUnion credit scores from my Wamu Credit Card.

The credit monitoring service is nice, but if it’s only going to last 6 or 9 months, then I really don’t have a use for it.

The best part of this settlement is the fact once your free service period ends, you don’t automatically get signed up to a paid service. The service will automatically terminate and if you want to continue using it, you probably have to call in and request so. There’s probably a way to do it online too.

I’m actually contemplating on the 3rd option: cash payment, even though there’s a risk of me getting nothing, but the services that are being offered to me has pretty much 0 value to me.

Kashmiri v. Regents Student Fee Lawsuit

So MsticAzn sends me this link a few weeks ago: Kashmiri lawsuit refund information

Kashmiri lawsuit refund information

Date: 2008-01-30
Contact: University of California Office of the President
Phone: (510) 987-9200
Email:

On Jan. 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the University of California’s petition for review of the judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the Kashmiri v. Regents student fee lawsuit. The San Francisco Superior Court will now approve a formula for determining the amount of each class member’s refund and a process for distributing refunds. Refund distributions will be handled by an outside claims administrator, not the university. Class members are encouraged to send their current email and postal addresses to the class action administrator for this case at: lnelson@rustconsulting.com. Any other questions should be directed to the attorneys representing the plaintiff class at: info@browngold.com.

Not having much clue what exactly the lawsuit was, I awaited MsticAzn to get more information.

However yesterday, SkyLancer brings up this same topic and apparently it had to do with UC Regents raising fees after students were enrolled back in 2003. Talking it over with Ungsunghero, he found the lawsuit documentation and apparently only applies to the following group:

  1. Current and former University of California (“UC”) students who enrolled in a UC professional degree program prior to December 16, 2000, and whose professional degree fees were raised after that date.
  2. Students who attended any UC school on a semester system during the Spring 2003 semester, whose fees for that semester increased after they had already enrolled in classes and received bills for the semester.
  3. Students who attended Summer 2003 session at UC Berkeley or UCLA, whose fees for that summer session increased after they had already enrolled and received bills for the session.

So I sent an email to Rust Consulting to find out how to determine if I was eligible for the refund and promptly received a reply back this morning:

Dear Mr. Hon,

Our records indicate that you are included in the Kashmiri v. The Regents of the University of California class. A notification was emailed to all class members to update them on the status of the settlement and to request that contact information be provided to update our records for future mailings. This notification was emailed to you at ********@berkeley.edu as that was the most current information that was available to us. I have included the notification in this email for your information in case you did not receive the previous email.

There is nothing further you need to do other than to keep us notified of any changes to your contact information. The case has been decided in favor of the students; however the trial court must still approve an allocation of recovery. Therefore, we are not certain when you will receive a refund, although it is likely to occur by the end of 2008. The students have created a website, www.educationisaright.org, that should post updates as they become available.

Sincerely,

Linda Nelson
Class Action Administrator
lnelson@rustconsulting.com

My ********@berkeley.edu email account was pretty much deactivated the day I graduated. I wonder if there’s some place I can go and update that email.

Anyway, here was the original email that was sent out to people:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT STEPS TO TAKE TO ENSURE YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR POTENTIAL SHARE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA FEE OVERCHARGE JUDGMENT

You have been identified by the University of California as a member of the plaintiff class in the class action lawsuit known as Kashmiri v. The Regents of the University of California, which challenged certain fee increases at the University. The $33.8 million judgment in favor of the plaintiffs has been affirmed on appeal and is now final.

You will receive additional information about the distribution of the funds recovered from the University. As we begin this process, we need current e-mail and postal addresses for all class members so that we can send you additional notices and, eventually, a check if you are entitled to one. If you have changed your name, please provide both names. Please provide any updated contact information as soon as you can and if possible by April 21, 2008, by (1) replying to this e-mail (if you are the addressee), (2) sending an e-mail to ucfees@rustconsulting.com, or (3) mailing the information to Kashmiri v. Regents Class Action, P.O. Box 1931, Faribault MN 55021-7186. The information you provide will not be used for any other purpose.

Also, please forward this email to any of your classmates who may be members of the plaintiff class and encourage them to update their contact information. The plaintiffs consist of three subclasses:

1. Current and former University of California (“UC”) students who enrolled in a UC professional degree program prior to December 16, 2002, and whose professional degree fees were raised after that date.

2. Students who attended any UC school on a semester system during the Spring 2003 semester, whose fees for that semester increased after they had already enrolled in classes and received bills for the semester.

3. Students who attended the Summer 2003 session at UC Berkeley or UCLA, whose fees for that summer session increased after they had already enrolled and received bills for the session.

Thank you.

Rust Consulting
Class Action Administrator

If you believe you qualify for the refund but did not receive an email from them, you should email Rust Consulting to verify if they have your updated information. I’m not sure how the refund is going to be split or how much each person will get, but I assume we’ll find out shortly.

Do I Ever Sleep?

So SueOn asked me this question earlier:

do you ever sleep?
or are you like chuck norris
you just wait

That reminded me of the Zuckerberg testimonies I was reading earlier. Apparently the court files for the case when Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook) was sued for stealing the social networking idea from another student group were accidentally released to a journalist/reporter. According to Facebook Founder Finds He Wants Some Privacy:

Social networking Web sites can seem dedicated to the idea that nobody’s personal life is worth keeping private, but when it comes to Mark Zuckerberg — the founder of Facebook, one of the largest networks — Facebook disagrees.

Facebook tried last week to force the magazine 02138 to remove some unflattering documents about Mr. Zuckerberg from its Web site. But a federal judge turned down the company’s request for a court order to take down the material, according to the magazine’s lawyers.

The dispute stemmed from a lawsuit charging that in 2003 and 2004, as a student at Harvard, Mr. Zuckerberg stole the idea and some of the computer source code for Facebook from some fellow students. They were planning a networking site of their own and had hired Mr. Zuckerberg to help with the programming.

You can read the original article on 02138: Poking Facebook:

Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg created one of the most trafficked sites on the Web and became a paper billionaire as a result. But ongoing lawsuits suggest that Facebook’s origins are murkier than Zuckerberg would like to admit. Is the man many are calling Harvard’s next Bill Gates telling the truth?

and here are the court documents from the Facebook trial: The Facebook Files.

How does this relate to the the question SueOn had asked me? In one of his testimonies, the transcript goes as below (Q = question/attorney and A = answer/Zuckerberg):

Q: Okay. What time did you wake up in the morning?
A: It probably wasn’t the morning.
Q: Okay. How late did you stay up programming?
A: I don’t know, like it’s quiet at night.
Q: Okay.
A: You can get work done.
Q: Did you work all night sometimes?
A: Yeah. I mean although, I guess that’s relative when you’re shifted hours like that.

You can say I’m pulling all nighters every day, but that’s because I go to sleep in the early morning (4-6am).

The testimony got boring really fast, though I will say that he sounded quite scared and his replies reminded me of someone who wasn’t really a profession, but brand new to the field.