Accessibility Litigation Trends
-
Acheson Hotels – I had to say something
My Google News feed has had dozens, maybe hundreds of articles about the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the Laufer v Acheson Hotels case. When written by disability rights advocates the positions are what you’d expect; either “whew we dodged a bullet” or “Laufer has standing and the Court saved itself from a horrible mistake.” Business… Continue reading
-
Acheson Hotels – tester standing at the crossroad 2.
In my last blog I looked at why testers became embedded in the enforcement of civil rights laws from a practical standpoint. Now it’s time to look at the law of standing as it relates to testers.¹ The Supreme Court recognized long ago that Article III of the Constitution only gives federal courts the right… Continue reading
-
Acheson Hotels: tester standing at the crossroads part 1.
Now that everyone (and I mean everyone¹ ) has weighed in on tester standing as presented to the Supreme Court in Acheson Hotels v Laufer I thought I might as well try to explain the issue for those who don’t live and breathe disabilities rights litigation. In my next blog I’ll look at the legal… Continue reading
-
California versus the Constitution – who can regulate internet accessibility?
Several other sources have reported on recent legislation in California that would establish WCAG 2.1 AA as the minimum accessibility requirement for websites that do business in California.¹ The bill is a disaster in many ways, but rather than look at its many individual flaws I think it is useful to ask whether the entire… Continue reading
-
Can an ADA website accessibility claim be mooted?
In ADA website litigation failure can teach us as much as success, and the plaintiff’s failure in Tavarez v. Extract Labs, Inc., 2023 WL 2712537, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023) is no exception.¹ Before getting into the details, here’s a primer on the doctrine of “mootness.” Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts… Continue reading
