Millions Impacted by Data Breach To Receive Cash, Free Monitoring in $20 Million Deal
Victims of a substantial data breach are set to receive a portion of a $20 million settlement. Over five million affected users are in line to receive compensation for their losses.
What Happened: A court has granted preliminary approval for a multi-million dollar settlement to be distributed among victims of a data breach. The breach was linked to the file transfer platform of cybersecurity firm Fortra.
The compromised data includes sensitive details such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and health insurance information.
Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing —
According to a report, the lawsuit was lodged against Fortra and several other companies, including rail service provider Brightline and healthcare firms Aetna, Community Health, Elevance Health, Imagine360, Intellihartx, NationsBenefits, and Santa Clara Family Health Plan.
Victims who can present 'reasonable documentation for losses' from the 2023 data breach will receive up to $5,000. Without such documentation, class members will receive approximately $85. Claims must be submitted by August 29.
Besides the cash payment, class members are also eligible to receive dark web monitoring services for one year to mitigate potential identity theft and fraud risks.
The payments will be made once the court gives the class action settlement final approval, with a final approval hearing scheduled for mid-September.Why It Matters: This settlement marks a significant victory for victims of data breaches, as it sets a precedent for future cases. It underscores the importance of cybersecurity and the potential financial consequences for companies that fail to adequately protect user data.
The inclusion of dark web monitoring services in the settlement also highlights the growing recognition of the long-term risks associated with data breaches, including identity theft and fraud.
This case serves as a reminder to companies of their responsibility to safeguard user data and the potential legal and financial repercussions of failing to do so.
Read Next:
Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — Invest before it's too late.
'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can invest today for just $0.30/share with a $1000 minimum.
Image: Shutterstock/Mdisk
Send To MSN: Send to MSN
UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets.
Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?
This article Millions Impacted by Data Breach To Receive Cash, Free Monitoring in $20 Million Deal originally appeared on Benzinga.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hails $1K-per-child ‘Trump Accounts' during White House roundtable
(NEXSTAR) – On Monday, President Trump promoted the so-called 'Trump Accounts' during a roundtable meeting with lawmakers and business leaders, including the CEOs of Dell, Uber and Goldman Sachs, among others. Related video above: Trump and Musk feud continues over 'big, beautiful bill' 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at the meeting. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' The proposal, part of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' would create tax-deferred investment accounts for infants that start with $1,000 per child. Once the child reaches age 18, they would be able to take out money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. Dell CEO Michael Dell called the proposed accounts a 'simple yet powerful way to transform lives' Monday. Dell and the other assembled CEOs were expected to earmark billions of dollars to be invested in the Trump Accounts for their employees' children. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success,' Dell said, according to the White House. 'With these accounts, children will be much more likely to graduate from college, to start a business, to buy a home, and achieve lifelong financial stability.' In order to qualify for one of the accounts, the child must have at least one parent with a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning that some babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents might not qualify. The money will be invested in an index fund where it will grow until the child reaches 18 and can withdraw funds to buy a home, pay for education or start a small business. Money spent on other things would be taxed at a higher rate. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to deposit up to $5,000 more per year. While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of 'baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The Associated Press contributed to this report.
2 hours ago
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON -- When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create tax-deferred investment accounts — coined 'Trump Accounts' — for babies born in the U.S. over the next four years, starting them each with $1,000. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation,' Trump said at a White House event Monday for the proposal. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy.' While the investment would be symbolically meaningful, it's a relatively small financial commitment to addressing child poverty in the wider $7 trillion federal budget. Assuming a 7% return, the $1,000 would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. At at time when wealth inequality has soured some young people on capitalism, giving them a stake in Wall Street could be the antidote, said Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, who led the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them,' Moore wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. When he dreamed up baby bonds, he envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Valdez, a former foster youth, said she was homeless when she turned 18. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A Brown Student Went Full DOGE Over How His $93,000 Tuition Is Spent. The Fallout Was Predictable—and Wrong.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Brown University sophomore Alex Shieh had a good idea. Inspired by Elon Musk's efforts to reduce supposed staffing inefficiencies in the federal government, Shieh wondered if there were a way to quantify and combat an analogous trend at his university. So with the help of A.I. and a number of publicly available databases, he compiled a list of the university's nearly 4,000 non-faculty employees, grouped them by category, and mocked up working job descriptions for each. Then he wrote emails to all of them, asking them to describe their value to the university. Shieh hoped the project would be the basis for a reporting project that would anchor the first few issues of the Brown Spectator, a defunct conservative student newspaper he and two classmates hoped to relaunch. Shieh's project had the erstwhile DOGE chief's fingerprints all over it, but there's one big difference between the two men: Musk will be able to start drawing on Social Security (if, of course, it's still solvent) in under a decade, while Shieh can't yet legally drink. Shieh's idea, even if it did have roots in our raging national culture wars, was quite ambitious, strong work for a young man with less than half of a degree under his belt. The authorities at Brown, however, didn't see it that way. Upon getting wind of the provocative email blast, they launched a conduct-code investigation and accused Shieh and his partners of trademark violations. And although all charges were eventually dropped, the university's intent was clear: They came to bury Shieh, not to praise him. They couldn't have been more wrong to do so. And it's not just Republicans who think so. I've been teaching sophomores for over a decade and a half, and while Shieh's project is certainly undergraduate work, it's of a particularly high caliber. It is timely, relevant, and enterprising, and it asks a pressing research question. Brown shouldn't have met him with disciplinary threats. Instead, the university should have offered him the best resources an elite institution can provide: academic mentorship and access to top-flight faculty research. If I'd had the opportunity to work with Mr. Shieh, I would have begun by praising him for identifying and focusing on a pressing problem for American higher education in a time of rising tuition costs: administrative bloat. According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute's Paul Weinstein Jr., non-faculty hiring has exploded over the past 50 years, and today, at the nation's top 50 universities, there is on average 1 non-faculty employee for every 4 students. This trend is particularly acute at Brown, where the ratio nears 1 to 3. But then I would challenge this student to reconsider his methodology—and to research whether Musk's approach is advisable. I would remind him that Musk's efforts to trim the fat at Twitter probably contributed to a giant drop in that company's valuation. And I would add that some experts believe that DOGE's cuts to the federal workforce may actually end up costing taxpayers money. (I would also admit that either initiative might bear fruit in the longer term.) I would then leverage the interdisciplinary connections available at a large research institution, sending Shieh to colleagues in the business school to learn about other approaches to considering and enacting substantial layoffs. If Shieh and his partners persisted, I would have sent them to professors in sociology and communications to figure out best practices for designing a survey that didn't inspire one recipient to respond, 'Fuck off.' (His email, which only garnered 20 responses, allegedly included the too-pert question 'What do you do all day?') If he wanted, in good faith, to get results, he should have recognized that he was operating inside a highly polarized, charged environment, sending a survey to adults who pay their bills with these jobs, and modulated his approach accordingly—something the university's many experts in rhetoric could have helped him see. As a onetime writing instructor, I would also advise him that it is misleading to refer to that profane recipient as an 'administrator [at] Brown' in Congressional testimony, when he is really a relatively low-level functionary in the events planning office. And by the way, I would have done all these things not because I agree with Shieh. Indeed, I don't think I do. Rather, I would have supported him because he had a serious academic question and the drive to think it through as part of an ambitious, time-intensive project. The fact that Brown University responded so aggressively only lends ammunition to those on the right who believe—often correctly—that American academia is hostile to conservative viewpoints. (This despite the fact that, as Shieh himself said, 'It's not inherently conservative to want to make education more affordable.') Now, perhaps Brown would have done some of these things had they been given ample notice of Shieh's plans, or if Shieh had registered the Spectator with the university in advance. As it was, it seems they were blindsided, and ended up reacting, rather than acting. So now, instead of boasting about high-profile conservative-leaning student research, they're trying to put out a political firestorm and opening themselves to attack at a moment when Elon Musk's old boss is gunning for the Ivy Leagues.
