Tyro class action, page-34

"unforeseen yes but only because it was a failure of proper testing and commissioning before roll out."

Thats not even remotely close to what caused the issue. The encryption method used by the 486 affected terminals was clearly depreciated.

TYR has already stated...

"486 merchants who do not have an operational terminal"

and...

"643 merchants with terminal types no longer manufactured (and more than ~6-years of age), the majority of which were purchased by merchants rather than rented as is Tyro’s current standard operating model. These units are obsolete and Tyro has been encouraging these merchants to upgrade to current terminal models"

TYR's patch management system was unable to remotely update these terminals simply because they were too old (incompatible with the patch management system) OR they had no legal right to do so as they dont own them. You cannot future proof...well anything, thats why there are patches and patch management systems and "Tyro’s current standard operating model" which these terminals were clearly outside of.

and this...

" In the circumstances Tyro is replacing these terminals (at a capitalised cost ~$0.5 million) on terms no less favourable to the impacted merchants. New units are being dispatched to these still impacted merchants."

I read somewhere TYR are waving fee's for Jan as well which is inline with compensation from telco's.

So the affected clients want to attempt to explain to a court that they are entitled to compensation because the terminals that they chose to purchase, that they own, which they didnt update, were no longer compatible with the network because the encryption mechanism was depreciated that TYR had no visibility of (rightfully so because it presents a risk to both TYR and the client).

Yeah good luck with that. They might need to find a more technical law firm just quietly.....

Nice work on z1p btw. Diamond hands bud !!! : )))