got an email for 2 free credits due to data breach

I purchased the new set on the day of release and card was compromised and $1300+ charges were made on the card until it was stopped (and reversed), new card issued. But though I got the email offering 2 credits, following the instructions on the email has done nothing to add the credits promised. I am assuming it eventually will? I hope?

Free credits link worked fine for me. Posted instantly.

.... But though I got the email offering 2 credits, following the instructions on the email has done nothing to add the credits promised. I am assuming it eventually will? I hope?

No, the credits appear immediately if the instructions are followed correctly. If it hasn't worked out yet contact SOM:

365support@strat-o-matic.com....

....and let them know you are having an issue getting your due.

Giving 2 free credits because they allowed their system to get breached is not showing appreciation of customers.
It is damage control.

I always use paypal, so I'm fine. but most companies when this has happened have offered at least 2 years of credit protection, which costs way more than 2 credits. You should sue to get your due if you were affected TBH. They are trying to pay you off on the cheap.

In fairness, Strat-O cirrected the hold up.

In fairness, Strat-O cirrected the hold up.

hahahaha that's not fairness, that's a minimum.

The fact they leaked financial data holds them 100% responsible, that's the law. I'm not sure how the email is worded, but they should pay for ANY money lost in getting your identity back, if stolen, as well as at least 2 years protection.

That's a minimum for any breach financial data.

Laymen tend to assume that there is a law that mandates financial liability in this type of case. This is not my area but in a rather cursory search I did not find any strict liability laws--federal or state--that apply in such a situation. If that's true, then you need to go on a negligence theory. There are two possible theories I see: (1) negligent security precautions that allowed the breach, (2) or negligently dealing with the breach, such as failing to adequately the customers of the breach. It may seem obvious that negligent security allowed for the breach, but a company could argue they took adequate precautions in line with the standards of the industry but there is just no way to foolproof against a hack.

So Strat should have a lot of motivation here to make their customers happy. The two year protection and making up for direct provable financial loss is a good way to keep a customer's loyalty. Whether Strat would be ultimately legally liable I dont know. But from a customer relations/reputational standpoint it's a good idea.

For me, even that two credit mollified things somewhat, not enough to make up for money I blew on security but it was something. I guess I dont care that much as long as nothing else happens. But they should be responding quickly to irate customers. But they are a small company and are not good at that kind of attentive customer service. They risk alienating long-standing loyal customers as a result.

Laymen tend to assume that there is a law that mandates financial liability in this type of case. This is not my area but in a rather cursory search I did not find any strict liability laws--federal or state--that apply in such a situation. If that's true, then you need to go on a negligence theory. There are two possible theories I see: (1) negligent security precautions that allowed the breach, (2) or negligently dealing with the breach, such as failing to adequately the customers of the breach. It may seem obvious that negligent security allowed for the breach, but a company could argue they took adequate precautions in line with the standards of the industry but there is just no way to foolproof against a hack.

So Strat should have a lot of motivation here to make their customers happy. The two year protection and making up for direct provable financial loss is a good way to keep a customer's loyalty. Whether Strat would be ultimately legally liable I dont know. But from a customer relations/reputational standpoint it's a good idea.

For me, even that two credit mollified things somewhat, not enough to make up for money I blew on security but it was something. I guess I dont care that much as long as nothing else happens. But they should be responding quickly to irate customers. But they are a small company and are not good at that kind of attentive customer service. They risk alienating long-standing loyal customers as a result.

I think people are too addicted to the game to leave because of this. Or maybe that's just me I'm talking about.

Look, I realize that SOM is a small company, and they obviously are not as tech driven as they should be. They aren't Target or Equifax who can stand lose millions in covering for their mistake.

But they really should, at least for people who were actually affected, step up with more than 2 credits. It's literally their responsilbility.