LexisNexis and legal collusion

[jwamplerusa]

Recently my family was selecting new insurance and was surprised that all potential suppliers seemed to have exactly the same information. Then I ran across this article and realized that once again non-citizen corporations have simply bought or found a way around the concept of collusion being unlawful. Much as the Feds now outsource what they are Constitutionally restricted from doing; insurance companies and others have simply outsourced the collusion to prevent actual competition.

Automakers Are Sharing Consumers' Driving Behavior With Insurance Companies - Slashdot

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Kenn Dahl says he has always been a careful driver. The owner of a software company near Seattle, he drives a leased Chevrolet Bolt. He's never been responsible for an accident. So Mr. Dahl, 65, was surprised in 2022 when the cost of...

tech.slashdot.org

I for one am making data requests. I want to see what the scum have recorded on me, and maybe find a way to demand removal of some of it. On the vehicle front, if your vehicle is "connected" learn how to disconnect it. (and if leased ensure the lessor didn't LoJack it. That appears to be a common tactic. Check to see if you have a jumper installed in your ODBII connector.)

You too can request your Consumer Disclosure Report here: https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request#

Bury them under requests, and hopefully demands for removal of data.

Another excellent example of why you do not want non-citizens (corporations, non-profits or any organizations) interacting with your elected servants. Those elected by the people should ONLY interact or be funded by individual citizens who can theoretically vote / serve.

OK, excuse me I need to go outside shake my fist at the sky and scream...

 

[Ingomike]

We only have ourselves to blame. We did not stop it when the camel stuck its nose under the tent. I was doing the Paul Revere thing thirty years ago when government started buying data from the credit reporting companies. This is total BS.

We need MAJOR privacy reform. NO INFORMATION can be collected without written consent. NO INFORMATION can be shared or sold without written consent. That written consent must be at 8th grade level understanding, no EULA of 97 pages of legalese allowed.

For example folks, google gmail and office suite. I was paying $10 a month for an email account thirty years ago. I paid $300 for a copy o MS office for ONE computer back then. Google is getting that level of cash for your data when they give you all that stuff.

Here is the latest thing I heard, call your bank to get a mortgage or refi and your phone blows up with mortgage people calling you saying they can beat the other places. How did they know? The credit bureaus are selling it to them with your contact info…

 

[rbhargan]

I wonder if George Orwell knew that his novel "1984" would one day be viewed as a "how to" manual? The future is actually much scarier than Orwell imagined.

 

[Libertarian01]

We only have ourselves to blame. We did not stop it when the camel stuck its nose under the tent. I was doing the Paul Revere thing thirty years ago when government started buying data from the credit reporting companies. This is total BS.

We need MAJOR privacy reform. NO INFORMATION can be collected without written consent. NO INFORMATION can be shared or sold without written consent. That written consent must be at 8th grade level understanding, no EULA of 97 pages of legalese allowed.

For example folks, google gmail and office suite. I was paying $10 a month for an email account thirty years ago. I paid $300 for a copy o MS office for ONE computer back then. Google is getting that level of cash for your data when they give you all that stuff.

Here is the latest thing I heard, call your bank to get a mortgage or refi and your phone blows up with mortgage people calling you saying they can beat the other places. How did they know? The credit bureaus are selling it to them with your contact info…

I would add to this that no service may be denied by not giving consent.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Ingomike]

I would add to this that no service may be denied by not giving consent.

Regards,

Doug

YES!

 

[jwamplerusa]

Maybe there will be some movement on this issue.

I may write a letter to AG Rokita and ask that he join the class action on the basis of the practice being a form of unlawful collusion.

Florida Man Sues G.M. and LexisNexis Over Sale of His Cadillac Data - Slashdot

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: When Romeo Chicco tried to get auto insurance in December, seven different companies rejected him. When he eventually obtained insurance, it was nearly double the rate he was previously paying. According to a federal complaint filed...

yro.slashdot.org

"...According to a federal complaint filed this week seeking class-action status, it was because his 2021 Cadillac XT6 had been spying on him..."

 

[Twangbanger]

If the insurance companies all raise their rates in concert... = "collusion."

If they raise rates based on "actual data" about individual users... = "not collusion," is probably the tactic being employed here.

And don't expect "business friendly" (read "conservative") politicians to be your friend on this. Because this requires passing "more laws" (which I thought grumbling old white men didn't think we needed?) which restrict what capitalist businesses are allowed to do and not do ("why do you hate freedom?").

Oh, and privacy? Remember when Conservatives railed against the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade, which "didn't exist," and which was fabricated out of whole cloth by activist justices?

We did it to ourselves. "They" are going to sell people the rope to hang themselves, and there will be no options.

So - are we finally for more laws now?

Is it possible that "more laws" can actually be a good thing, under some circumstances?

Fixing this is going to require a sort of "F- the man, middle-finger-to-corporations" mentality that is not currently well-represented in politics. And it's going to require a brand of Libertarianism that isn't rooted in Milton Friedman quotes and tenured seats at the Cato Institute. Because it requires us to view the Modern Corporation as an enemy to the Individual which is at least equal in danger to the Federal Government. And that view isn't (currently) popular among old, white gun-owning men.

Just as the "Snowden" thread would have been filled with old white men screaming "Traitor" 10 years ago, the mentality on Corporations has to change.

Corporations are similar to the Federal Government. They are necessary; but they are a necessary evil. They have to be kept in bondage so they do not become tyrants. This means laws and regulation. We have to be willing to put our boot heel on their neck, or they will surely do it to us. If you believe they truly only answer to their Stockholders, then a fence of laws and regulations needs to be erected around them, just like the Constitution limits () the Federal Government.

(PS - Bill Buckley and the National Review aren't going to tell you this.)

 

[Methane Herder]

Anything that let's my vehicle talk to anyone.....I disable. Cut wires, Faraday cage, whatever.

If I wad the car up in a cornfield along SR65 some Sunday morning, that's me. If I don't, it's a non event for my paid insurance vendor. Number of times that the "wad the car up" scenario has occurred, Zero. Number of times my insurance vendor has SIGNIFICANTLY raised my rates in the last three years, 100 percent.

MH

 

[Libertarian01]

A solution...?

 

[Shadow01]

The issue here is the lack of being able to opt in Or out as the case may be. The only law needed is to be able to opt out without being penalized by the rate paid.