VA barred from publicizing offer to vets

I don't often quote entire articles, but this one is important to a lot of folks I know, and I have some questions that hopefully one of my readers who have legal experience could answer. Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A federal judge temporarily has barred the government from publicizing its free credit monitoring offer to veterans whose personal data was stolen and wants to see if they might get a better federal offer.

Lawyers who have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the 26.5 million veterans and active-duty troops affected contend that accepting the government's offer could jeopardize their chance of winning more money in the privacy suit.

U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky scheduled a hearing this Friday to determine whether the Veterans Affairs Department should revise its offer. His order on the credit monitoring was issued late last Friday.

The suit seeks free monitoring and other credit protection for an indefinite period as well as $1,000 in damages for each person — or up to $26.5 billion total — in what has become one of the nation's largest information security breaches.

Last week, the department announced its plan to offer free monitoring for a year to millions of veterans and nearly all active-duty military troops whose names, birthdates and Social Security numbers were stolen May 3 from a VA data analyst's home in suburban Maryland.

The department said it would send out letters to affected veterans and military personnel in early August — after it solicits bids from contractors — on how to sign up for the free service. It also posted information on the government's Web site.

But in court papers, lawyers for veterans said the VA's deal was "incomplete and misleading." The VA must make clear whether veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout, lawyer Marc Mezibov wrote.

A spokesman for the VA did not have an immediate comment Sunday.

Last week, a Senate committee approved $160 million to pay for the credit monitoring for veterans. It is one of many expected payments as the government struggles with fallout from data breaches crossing at least six agencies.

The VA alone has spent more than $14 million so far to notify veterans by letter and set up a call center, and it is spending an additional $200,000 a day to maintain the call center.

Class-action suits filed by veterans alleging privacy violations are pending in Covington, Ky., and Washington, D.C.

OK, the questions:

The article doesn't say the VA is banned from helping, just publicizing it. Is that a typo? If not, what good does that do for anyone?

The lawyers are suing for cash plus credit monitoring. If the Gov't offers the credit monitoring, how does that hurt the case in any way? Or are the lawyers looking at the value of the monitoring as part of the basis for determining their fee?

By the way, here's the press release from the VA about the credit monitoring service. I see no hint of "veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout" anywhere in there. From where are they getting this?

For what it's worth, I'm not very impressed by this suit in the first place. If my data (which was on the laptop that was stolen) is actually used for some criminal purpose, of course I want Uncle Sam to fix the damage. But so far there's no indication that the information is being used by anyone. Credit monitoring seems appropriate, and after enough time has passed to be reasonably sure that this was a non-event, will no longer necessary. Credit monitoring for life - essentially what they're asking for - seems expensive and unecessary.

The theft of the laptop alone doesn't seem to me enough to justify an award. Until my data is actually used in some way, I don't have a reason to sue anyone. Of course, once that happens, the damage may add up to much more than a grand. Will this class action prevent me from making a claim if that happens?

Unfortunately, I don't see that this suit benefits veterans in the least. If any vets experience real harm, this isn't going to be much help. For those that weren't harmed, at best it makes them unwitting accomplices to what appears to be yet another money grab from some opportunistic lawyers. What's the fee for this sort of thing - 30%? 40%? More? This looks like a retirement event for a few lawyers who fixed a problem that didn't exist and prevented future real problems from being addressed.

Anyone know the answers?