Legal notice from Ancestry.com

[Hackstaple]

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.

[RJ_Paton]

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 

[suttontrust]

I agree the Americans overdo the litigation, but if a company has broken the law they're entitled to sue.

[RJ_Paton]

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.

[Hackstaple]

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?

[piedstilt]

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!

[suttontrust]

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

[trellisick]

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

[Bee]

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