RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: piedstilt on Friday 18 November 05 13:14 GMT (UK)
-
When I saw a email in my inbox with this heading my first thought (after all the discussion about copyright issues) was 'oh-oh, they've found me out'!!
Phew, not so ...
Has anyone else received this notice about a 'pending class action' against Ancestry?
You can read all about it through the link below. Fascinating!
Ros
http://www.ancestry.com/legal/class.aspx?o_iid=21156&o_lid=21156&o_it=20875
-
It's given me a headache............but the legal jargon is amazing and as long as you are not personally responsible for the sums of money they are talking about........
:) ;) 8)
-
Ok I've just looked at the link - and don't understand a word of it ??? Whats it all about ??
Fiona
-
All that legal jargon :o.....I only understand plain English :D
Juddee
-
LOL Judee and Floss, I thought I was being thick not understanding a word of that mumbo jumbo!!!!
Please could someone translate and post?????
Nicky
-
As I understand it ........
A group of people are suing Ancestry under US law because they claim that Ancestry failed to tell them about the additional costs of paying their subscription monthly instead of as a one off annual payment.
The people doing the suing ( plaintiffs ) are seeking compensation.Ancestry.com ( defendants ) deny the allegation.
Ancestry.com are required under US law to put a notice up which gives other monthly subscribers the opportunity to add their details to the list for a chance in a share of the "winnings" if the action is successful.
Disclaimer : At least I think that's what it boils down to. ???
-
Thanks for putting it in plain English Dragonlore
I can understand that...why they have to go into such longwinded explanations is beyond me >:(
Nicky.......love those penguins ....puts a smile on my face every time I see them ;D ;D ;D
Juddee
-
Dragonlore wrote
"Ancestry.com are required under US law to put a notice up which gives other monthly subscribers the opportunity to add their details to the list for a chance in a share of the "winnings" if the action is successful."
Does this also mean that if the action fails then all those with their names on the list would also have to share paying the costs? Perhaps that doesn't happen in the US, otherwise why sue.
I always thought that if you paid for something in stages instead of all in one go there would be extra to pay anyway.
Jean
-
"Facts Underlying the Lawsuit.
Defendants provide genealogical subscription services over the Ancestry.com Internet website. In the past, a number of the subscriptions were offered on an annual basis, payable in either monthly payments or by a single one time payment. In each instance, the sum of the monthly payments was greater than the one time payment. The maximum amount of statutory damages recoverable in this class action is the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the Defendants’ net worth. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(B). As set forth below, that is less than one sixth (1/6) the estimated value of the Settlement Benefits under the proposed Settlement."
If US law says you have to tell a customer that it costs more to pay monthly than in one lump, and Ancestry didn't tell people that, they'll be found guilty, I suppose.
-
I read somewhere that one in every 212 Americans is a lawyer of some kind. This is the result. I hope they fail and I hope their lawyers lose a bundle. How anyone can concern themselves with such trivial animosities is beyond the senses of any normal person. >:(
-
From reading the original link it would appear that they haven't "lost" as from my reading Ancestry appear to be caving in rather than face the cost of litigation.
But it rather seems a case of people wanting something for nothing and then crying "unfair" when they don't get it ???
-
I agree the Americans overdo the litigation, but if a company has broken the law they're entitled to sue.
-
Watch out for the first law suit for hurt feelings when someone finds an "illegitimate" marker on an ancestors records ::)
I agree the Americans overdo the litigation, but if a company has broken the law they're entitled to sue.
I have no problem with suing a company which is clearly in the wrong for suitable recompense ..... but a class action suit of this nature is rather like trying to crack a walnut using a steamroller ..... and then expecting there to be no comeback. .... although to be fair we have heard only Ancestry's version of the story.
It could be interesting watching the changes which come about on Ancestry (and other online resources) because of this action.
-
I suppose that if you have people who find it difficult to understand that coffee may be hot one can hardly expect them to appreciate that paying on terms may cost more than paying up front. In fact it seems rather easy to understand as Ancestry lays out clearly what a quarter costs, a half year and an annual sub. A most casual acquaintance with simple arithmetic will then tell you that 4 x the quarterly will be more than the annual figure.
I would be ashamed to have my name attached as a litigant in a law-suit for deadheads. I see it not as taking a steamhammer to crack a walnut but taking a peanut to crack a steamhammer. Anyway what does it all mean. Can they get $500,000 between them - a dollar each after the lawyers get theirs, or half a million per claimant because they paid $2 each over the odds? 8)
-
The proposed settlement seems to be this:
'Defendants [Ancestry] will provide each Class Member, at no cost, access to all of the Defendants’ subscription databases available through the Ancestry.com website for a 31 day period. Those Class Members who have one or more current subscriptions with the Defendants through the Ancestry.com website will have those subscriptions automatically extended for one month at no additional cost. The cumulative current market value of this benefit to the Class exceeds $3,000,000.'
The very interesting part is the last sentence!
-
Does the $3m relate to the people who are currently pursuing the class action, or to the total number of people signed up to Ancestry on a monthly subscription? Could someone with an Ancestry sub please work out how many subs make $3m
-
i really don't know what the case is about but just looking at a few of the comments made has made me think, why has ancestry a monopoly of the information that we over the years have given freely to our respective governments under threat of being prosocuted if we did not give the information , surly it is our right to have access to this (our) information free of charge? and how has ancestry got the information that we and our ancestors gave freely in the first place while it is witheld from us the people who gave it in the first place, they and our government are making a lot of money out of our own information, surly this is not right, why can we not access all records held in all repositaries free of charge, these records do belong to us as do relics and things held at museums etc. we as genealogists should have the freedom like any other historian the right to see and use these records,
well there you go ive had my moan! what do you think? kali
-
i really don't know what the case is about but just looking at a few of the comments made has made me think, why has ancestry a monopoly of the information that we over the years have given freely to our respective governments under threat of being prosocuted if we did not give the information , surly it is our right to have access to this (our) information free of charge? and how has ancestry got the information that we and our ancestors gave freely in the first place while it is witheld from us the people who gave it in the first place, they and our government are making a lot of money out of our own information, surly this is not right, why can we not access all records held in all repositaries free of charge, these records do belong to us as do relics and things held at museums etc. we as genealogists should have the freedom like any other historian the right to see and use these records,
well there you go ive had my moan! what do you think? kali
I assume, though someone will correct me if I'm wrong, that the charge covers transcription costs and the upkeep of the site. It also allows us to be lazy ;) and sit at our pc and find the info we need rather than having to travel the length and breadth of the country searching libraries, record offices etc.
Bee
-
In answer to somebody's question above, I believe that these kinds of class action suits in the US are not paid for out of pocket by the plaintiffs. I think the lawyers only take it on if they think it's a case they can win, and then they take a share of the proceeds when they do. If they lose, they don't get paid.
-
i really don't know what the case is about but just looking at a few of the comments made has made me think, why has ancestry a monopoly of the information that we over the years have given freely to our respective governments under threat of being prosocuted if we did not give the information , surly it is our right to have access to this (our) information free of charge? and how has ancestry got the information that we and our ancestors gave freely in the first place while it is witheld from us the people who gave it in the first place, they and our government are making a lot of money out of our own information, surly this is not right, why can we not access all records held in all repositaries free of charge, these records do belong to us as do relics and things held at museums etc. we as genealogists should have the freedom like any other historian the right to see and use these records,
well there you go ive had my moan! what do you think? kali
Why do you assume Ancestry has a monopoly on the information.
Any information it has on English & Welsh census is freely available at the National Archives and the Family Record Centre, in addition many local libraries carry the census for their area.
As far as I am aware Ancestry does not hold any records not accessible elsewhere.
If your posting is complaining about having to pay to access records on line, that is a different matter. It costs money to transcribe and host such sites and anyone who does so is entitled to a return of their investment.
The government fulfills its duty by allowing access to the records at the archive in which they are housed. This is payed for by the taxpayers. Would you prefer to pay more tax to allow all government records to be available free on line or would you prefer such databases to be paid for by the users.
Cheers
Guy
-
Business is business. As Guy says the whole point of business is to get a return on investment.
As others have said, the charge we pay for access to records on line is not paying for a census page. It is paying for convenience.
It takes an investment to provide that convenience to you so you should pay.
The fairness debate comes in on how pay is structured - pay per view, subs etc. There is no logical argument for demanding businesses or govts to work for nothing.
All the information is available free in the appropriate repositories. Just think of the cost of visiting a records office distant from your home?
As for the class action it seems really quite simple. The US have a law that says they have to declare total price under differing paying schemes and they didn't - whoops.
Interestingly I think the free month offer is a very clever response.
It actually doesn't cost them anything. Yes a financial value is measurable BUT they haven't taken the goodwill and probably returning custom from the offer.
They will probably make more money on the back of this than they will lose. Since the people who have paid through installments have actually paid for that month by paying more by choosing installments then Ancestry's revenue is still at the same return as if the same people paid in a lump sum.
Though that is based on whether Ancestry's bank charges for installments is volume related or not?
Heyho I'm blethering now.
Pam
;D
-
Having read through the blurb on both links in the e-mail I received it would seem that anyone who puts their name as being a member of the class you can get access to Ancestry.com "subscription databases for 31 days at no extra charge"
Presumably this means that someone could gain access to everyones e-mail addressess? They could then sell them on to scammers who will send out spam and be able to address you by your name. Thereby making it look like a genuine e-mail and not a scam. If you see what I mean. I am thinking of those scams supposedly coming from your bank.
From my own point of view, I used the monthly payment plan because I could not afford the yearly payment. I now use the quarterly plan because it appeared that the monthly plan ceased. Ancestry.com had stopped collecting and I didn't use the site for some while.
When I went back there I spotted that some many of the sections I had been using had gone over to 'pay to see' so I decided to sign up again.
There was no monthly plan which is why I opted for the quarterly. Didn't notice any wording that said paying that way would cost me me than paying for a years subscription. I just assumed it would. Does that mean the next class lawsuit will be for this. :-\
Jean
-
No it means you will be given a free subscription to Ancestry.com for 31 days.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks Guy.
Jean
-
If this claim is successful, what will happen? Ancestry will have to fork out several million, no doubt.
This will of course actually paid out by their insurers, who will then either bump up ancestry's premiums or cancel the cover. Result of the latter is that Ancestry will need to find another insurer at vastly inflated premiums.
At the end of the day it means higher costs for ancestry, which will inevitably have to be passed on to the consumer. Which means subscribers like you and me will have to fork out more.
I can't understand how these idiots who constantly sue can be so short sighted - more litigation means higher costs for everybody else; or are these people so selfish that they are only interested in making a quick profit for themselves at everyone elses expense?
Whatever happened to common sense?
-
Hi All,
Received an email this morning telling me that I was "a member of the class and entitled to the settlement benefit ... which consists of full access to the family internet resources at Ancestry.com for the month of May 2006, the equivalent of a month's Ancestry World Deluxe subscription".
Great news - and I didn't do a thing! Only problem is that I will be travelling for the month of May and probably won't get to use any of it - but it does add an extra free month at the end of my subscription!
Cheers,
Ros