I could be misreading it but sounds like 31mil is the limit on "alternative cash payment" for those who opt out of the credit monitoring. Seems the rest is used for those who are opting for getting credit monitoring, then remediation for those who actually had identity theft happen, identity restoration services, and probably related provable damages to having identity stolen or something tangible damaged from the breach.
So seems like the difference may be between those who just had data exposed in the breach (credit monitoring or small cash payment), vs those with additional provable damages from the breach (identity theft, damaged credit, dealing with damages/fallout from those, etc). Not saying I agree, just what I can see in settlement docs.
The FTC could really be communicating this all better here.
So seems like the difference may be between those who just had data exposed in the breach (credit monitoring or small cash payment), vs those with additional provable damages from the breach (identity theft, damaged credit, dealing with damages/fallout from those, etc). Not saying I agree, just what I can see in settlement docs.
The FTC could really be communicating this all better here.
Edit: link to proposed settlement doc https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/172_3203_eq...