AP infinity plus one - New AP Statement

[Ps3tn0NcYk]

In the hypothetical scenario where Absolute is on trial for this debacle, do you not agree that Absolute's lawyers will always argue that the "refund" was an implied "settlement"?

Look at the basic time line of events.

1.) Absolute denies everything.

Standard opening play.

2.) Absolute states they were hacked.

Here they are hoping the story ends. Absolute produces some paperwork that certifies that their security meets "standards" and the ex-employee hacker is to blame. Thus exonerating them from any legal liability and focusing the heat on the phantom employee. The ex-employee line was critical as it is reasonable to presume an ex-employee may have the ability to compromise otherwise ironclad security.

3.) Absolute admits their system was compromised by a "high level" consultant, exposing the actual company to legal risk and not just the consultant, and immediately begins sending settlements out to all affected parties.

If a majority of the players harmed by this event rejected the settlement in favor of seeking legal remedy, Absolute would turn over the "high level consultant" immediately.

Since that isn't and likely will not be the case, Absolute will continue to try to buy their way out of it by offering a settlement in the amount of money lost due to cheating.