Lamb v. Wells Fargo
Have you seen the settlement in Lamb v. Wells Fargo, as described at this site? I learned about it in an insert with my credit card bill.
I get: one month -- ONE -- of free internet bill pay. That's not even worth signing up for. The supposed cost of this is $3.5M. I'd like to know how that was calculated. My guess would be that hardly anyone will sign up for just a month and the cost will be very low. Of course, a certain number of people will stay on with the service after the first month, so the net cost to Wells will be even lower.
"Charities" get: $3.25M. There are some worthy causes on this list. There are also some litigious advocacy groups who would more aptly be characterized as political operations than charities. Regardless, there is no reason at all why paying off "charities" should be considered a means of compensating class members who suffered damages as a result of Wells' actions.
And the attorneys get: "up to" $2.85M. Not bad for a firm with only three attorneys. I wonder what this works out to per hour. It happens that this is almost exactly 30% of the total.
So Wells pays off the "charities," perhaps getting a nice tax deduction, and offers ONE month of free internet bill pay. And the lawyers get almost $3M.
Does anyone ever fight these things? Is it worthwhile? -- Alan Frame, San Francisco
Yes, occasionally someone does fight them. In this case the deadline for objections and opt-outs is Jun. 30. A couple of further comments: first, the rationale of the settlement is to punish (there is no other word) Wells Fargo for sharing certain information about its customers with outside marketers over a 6 year period, to the supposed detriment of their privacy. Second, existing users of the online bill-pay service will get a free month, which probably is a genuine benefit to them, at least.
Comments
Yeah, except that Bill Pay is free for people with a combined minimum balance of a certain amount. I forget what it is, but I don't pay for billpay because I have the min balance.
So, then, what the heck do I get??
- jonathan.
Posted by: jonathan cobb | May 8, 2004 2:02 AM
Thanks for your post. I received the same letter mailed to me as the one you mentioned and was outraged at the settlement which has compensated the suing laywers with absolutely no benefit to the class being represented. The guise of contributing to charitable organizations is an attempt at appeasement, but Wells Fargo would probably be donating to these groups otherwise. I don't have the time to pursue counter-litigation but would definitely be interested in doing so if there is enough critical mass. I will be submitting my letter to exclude myself from the class in the next few days but wanted to first search for others in the same situation.
Posted by: Clay Degenhardt | June 3, 2004 6:46 PM
After a concerted effort at searching for others in the same situation, this web page was the only reference I found regarding the suit. I have opted-out of the Class and will also be mailing an objection letter (along with requisite copies to all attorneys and "Proof of Service" form). E-mail me a request (overlawyered.com@incore.net) and I will reply with a URL where you can download copies of letters sent (Microsoft Word format). If there's enough interest, I will convert them to PDF and post the URL.
Posted by: Clay Degenhardt | June 4, 2004 3:29 AM
The Consumer Federation of California plans to file objections to this settlement, and we are likely to be joined by other consumer and privacy advocates. If you are interested in joining others in objecting, please reply to: consumerfedofca@earthlink.net. We must file our objections before the end of June. You may be interested in our website, which has some great (in all modesty) flash animations poking fun at the banks that claim to protect you while they are killing privacy laws: www.consumerfedofca.org
Posted by: Richard Holober | June 11, 2004 9:06 PM