Published on: | by

Data is a key resource for artificial intelligence (AI) and technology companies. But with this power comes a critical responsibility: data security. For AI and tech companies, data security isn’t just a matter of ethics — it’s a legal requirement. A single breach can mean hefty fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. Here are some of the key legal requirements shaping this industry and the practical steps to ensure compliance.

Key Data Protection Laws

Governments worldwide have crafted regulations like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to protect personal data as technology advances. Below are the essentials of these laws, organized for quick reference.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

In the world of online retail, strike-through pricing—displaying a higher “original” price crossed out next to a lower “sale” price—is a common marketing tactic to highlight discounts and drive sales. However, when not implemented correctly, this strategy can lead to legal claims from consumer protection law firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, Tauler Smith LLP, and others. This article outlines practical strategies businesses can use to defend against similar lawsuits.

2025-05-14_15-15-15-1024x650
Understanding A Typical Lawsuit

A typical lawsuit or complaint letter centers on the plaintiff’s purchase of a given item advertised at a lower price with a higher strike-through reference price. The plaintiff will claim this reference price was not the “prevailing market price” within the three months prior to the advertisement, nor was the date when it prevailed clearly stated, rendering the discount misleading. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a class of California consumers who purchased products at with inflated reference prices.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Picture1Creating an accessible website is not just good for business—it’s a legal imperative to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA standards are widely recognized as the benchmark for website accessibility by US courts. This article outlines actionable steps to achieve compliance, explores whether an ordinary person can tackle this independently, and provides a cautionary note about software overlay tools that have become very popular.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

California has long seen a high number of lawsuits filed by individuals with disabilities alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. Many have complained that these laws have been exploited by serial plaintiffs who file hundreds or thousands of lawsuits for minor technical violations, such as parking slopes being a few degrees too steep. Senate Bill 84 (SB-84), introduced on Jan. 17, 2025, by Senators Niello, Ashby, and Caballero, aims to strike a balance—preserving the rights of individuals with disabilities while offering small businesses a fair opportunity to address violations before facing lawsuits. At JMBM, we’re closely tracking this proposed legislation and its potential impact on our clients. Here’s what you need to know. Similar legislation has been proposed in the past, such as SB 585, but never passed. SB-84, however, is being proposed with some bipartisan support.

What SB-84 Proposes

SB-84 seeks to amend Section 55.56 of the California Civil Code, which governs statutory damages in accessibility claims. The bill introduces a critical procedural safeguard for businesses employing 50 or fewer individuals: a mandatory notice-and-cure period. Under the proposed law:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

The digital age has transformed how businesses interact with customers, but with this shift comes heightened legal exposure under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Unruh Civil Rights Act. Website accessibility lawsuits now account for a substantial percentage of all ADA Title III claims in recent years—a trend fueled by plaintiffs’ attorneys targeting businesses with inaccessible online platforms. As courts increasingly recognize websites as “places of public accommodation,” compliance is no longer optional—it’s a necessity.

Drawing from our experience defending clients in high-stakes ADA litigation, including a landmark victory for Marriott in which the Court required the plaintiff to pay Marriott for filing frivolous litigation, this article outlines critical compliance strategies to mitigate risk and foster inclusivity.

The Legal Landscape: Why Websites Are Under Fire

Continue ›

Published on: | by

“Strike-through pricing”—where retailers display a higher original price alongside a lower sale price—has been an effective marketing strategy for decades. However, in California, businesses must be cautious when using this strategy to ensure compliance with state laws. Misleading pricing claims can lead to expensive unanticipated legal repercussions, consumer mistrust, and costly class-action lawsuits.

The primary statute governing strike-through pricing in California is California Business and Professions Code § 17501. This law is designed to prevent deceptive pricing practices by ensuring that any advertised former price genuinely reflects the prevailing market price within a recent timeframe.

Key Provisions of California Business and Professions Code § 17501

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Section 55.54 Protections

For years, California businesses and their organizations have been trying to rein in the plethora of ADA lawsuits, particularly those filed by a handful of plaintiffs and their law firms to curb litigation abuse. Those trying to curb ADA litigation abuse have made several apparently important inroads.

One such inroad designed to curb litigation abuse is California Civil Code Section 55.54 which was enacted to provide protective measures against serial ADA lawsuits filed by “High Frequency Litigants.” If the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant, as defined by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.55(b), then a defendant may seek a 90-day stay of the litigation, and an Early Neutral Evaluation. A high-frequency litigant is defined by a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. The process is incredibly simple, and requires the filing of a single form, checking off a few boxes. The most important rule is that the Section 55.54 application must be filed before or concurrently with the Answer, or responsive pleading, to the Complaint.

The goal of the Early Neutral Evaluation, and the 90-day stay, is for parties to reach early settlement. The Court will set forth the necessary procedures, documents, and goals for the early neutral evaluation. The Court may also require parties to conduct a joint inspection of the property in question.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

So Cal Equal Access Group (So Cal) files ADA lawsuits almost on a daily basis. By and large, these lawsuits filed in Federal Court focus on the lack of accessible parking, inaccessible paths of travel to the building entrances, inaccessible entry doors, transaction counters that are excessively high and bathrooms that fail to comply with the ADA and the California Building Code (CBC). Lately, the firm has set its sights on the auto repair industry in the greater Los Angeles area. The law firm has filed suits on behalf of Larry Dunn, Jardine Gougis, Cesar Acevedo and Moses Villalobos, among others.

These lawsuits are typically filed against building and business owners related to properties built long before the ADA was enacted in 1991. Under the ADA both building owners and business operators are jointly and severally liable to the disabled plaintiff which means the plaintiff can sue either the business owner or building owner or both. Of course, landlords typically place responsibility on the tenant for indemnification for violations of law in the operation of their business through their leases. However, this legal chestnut is of little moment to the plaintiff’s lawyers who sue both the landlord and business operator. They typically sue the landlord who may have no idea that these ADA and CBC violations exist. Landlords typically tender the defense and indemnification to the tenant which only works if the tenant has the wherewithal to pay to defend both parties. Continue ›

Published on: | by

California Senate Bill 585 (SB 585) seeks to achieve a balance between ensuring accessibility for individuals with disabilities and protecting small businesses from exploitative litigation. The draft bill proposes a “right to cure” period, allowing businesses with 50 or fewer employees 120 days to rectify alleged construction-related accessibility violations before facing statutory damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.

Background

Under existing California law, businesses found in violation of construction-related accessibility standards can be subject to minimum statutory damages starting at $4,000 per violation, along with attorney’s fees. This framework has led to a surge in lawsuits, particularly in California where statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act incentivize high levels of litigation. See Unruh Civil Rights Act Basics. Many of these lawsuits have targeted small businesses for minor infractions, resulting in significant financial burdens.

Provisions of SB 585

SB 585 introduces several key measures that would apply to business with 50 of fewer employees anytime in the past 3 years:

  • Notice Requirement: Plaintiffs must serve a letter to the business detailing each alleged violation of accessibility standards before filing a lawsuit; and
  • 120-Day Cure Period: Upon receiving the letter, businesses have 120 days to correct the specified violations before the plaintiff can file a lawsuit.
  • Limitation on Liability: If the business remedies the violations within the cure period, it is not liable for statutory damages, plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, or costs related to those violations.
  • Prevention of Circumvention: Plaintiffs cannot bypass these provisions by seeking general discrimination damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if the claim is based on physical accessibility standards under California law.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

On our ADA Compliance & Defense Blog, we have written extensively about Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Unruh Civil Rights Act lawsuits. Many such lawsuits are filed by a small handful of serial plaintiffs and their law firms who actively seek out physical locations and websites of businesses that are allegedly not fully accessible. Once found, the plaintiff will sue the business and/or the landlord for disability discrimination. For example, a plaintiff might sue 3 businesses in a week because the accessible parking slope was above 2.1% or the website was not accessible for blind users’ screen reading software. In such cases, the plaintiff typically seeks injunctive relief (a court order requiring compliance), statutory damages of $4,000 per occurrence, and attorneys’ fees.

There are various defenses to such cases that my team and I explore when defending a client who has been sued. See my recent articles on that topic:

Common Defenses to Unruh Civil Rights Act and ADA Lawsuits (Part 1)

Continue ›