Do it anyway, but worth mentioning that the maximum penalty is _not_ $700M, but $31M. If more than 250k(ish) people sign up, the payout per-person goes down. [1]
They will be giving away their "ID Patrol" product ($16.95/month) for four years, and charging the fund $813/each. Essentially the left hand is going to pay the right hand and it is considered a "fine."
All the higher ups get plausible deniability and the headlines in the news, and nine out of ten people’s eyes will glaze over by the time you say conflict of interest.
I am asking “what is the logical reasoning behind the decision of the judge in this particular scenario”.
The situation may be unfair, but why specifically?
I wouldn't think the judge in the case can actually do anything in cases where the plaintiffs and defendants reach an accord, or at least the corruption needs to rise to a level higher than what is seen in this case.
Imagine a defective physical product went out. Then the company sent out repair kits. Those kits have a real cost to produce/ship/etc
It would still seem kind of silly that a company is sending me repair kits instead of money I can choose whether to invest in repairs or not, but so it goes
It's racketeering.
I would presume the law is a bit better in the physical world as making repair kits directly impacts your balance that you can’t use for anything else, at the least.