HOUSE OF straying dinkles, Ashley Madison, will pay a rather paltry $1.66m to settle the damning investigations into its lax security and some rather dubious practices.
The rest of the $17.5m is being written off because the company can't afford it, because that's how debt works now, apparently.
"I recognise that it was a far lower number frankly than I would have liked," Federal Trade Commission chairwoman Edith Ramirez told Reuters.
"We want them to feel the pain. We don't want them to profit from unlawful conduct. At the same time, we are not going to seek to put a company out of business."
Ashley Madison has continued to be something of a conundrum because although it is offering nothing illegal, its self-confessed raison d'etre is to facilitate extra-marital affairs, which more conservative elements argue is immoral to the point of justifying stopping the company operating altogether.
The company was also found to have created fake female profiles to lure in male users, and had failed to delete all details after the closure of accounts, as it assured visitors that it would do. Thus when data leaked, all 10GB of it, it included people who thought that they had gotten away.
Ernst and Young, which ran the investigation found that some users in the US were still chatting to fembot Fatales as recently as this time last year.
"The company is stable. We're very pleased with the outcome" claims Rob Segal, incumbent CEO of the company, who took over after the leak.
Although this will settle the official investigation, there are a number of class-action lawsuits pending from users of the site who have been victims of the security breaches, and it is likely that given the damning findings of the official report, their chances of success are high, even if just because they were talking to a bottie, not a hottie. µ
Firm likely will move to eliminate the chunky bottom bezel
Finally, a clear view of Novak Djokovic's nasal pubes
Move comes in response to a serious of rumour-fuelled violent incidents in India
Phishing attacks were launched against the candidates' staff