Articles Posted in Websites

Published on: | by

SF-Books-300x200

When facing a lawsuit under The California Unruh Civil Rights Act or Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and property owners should be aware of potential legal defenses that may be available to them. The law mandates that public accommodations (i.e., most businesses open to the public) be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Violations can lead to costly lawsuits and legal battles. However, there are many available defenses that defendants can raise to win lawsuits or mitigate liability. Here are a few of the most common legal defenses to consider (although there are others that you should discuss with your attorney):

  1. No Ownership, Operation or Control (Incorrect Party)

First, businesses and landlords are often incorrectly named in accessibility lawsuits. However, a business or landlord cannot be liable for property or website conditions that it does not own, operate or control. For example, a tenant cannot be held liable for areas of a parking lot that it does not lease and cannot legally alter. This often occurs in large shopping centers. JMBM was responsible for setting precedent in this area at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in the case Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC (2015) 780 F.3d 1260 (Case No. 12-56520). You must first determine if the correct party was named in the lawsuit.

  1. Compliance or Equivalent Facilitation

Sometimes plaintiffs file lawsuits alleging that there are “barriers to access” (i.e., violations) that do not exist. For example, businesses open to the public are generally required to provide an accessible entrance. But not every entrance needs to be accessible. A plaintiff might allege that the property lacks an accessible entrance not realizing one exists on the other side of the building. Certain serial Unruh plaintiffs now often file lawsuits alleging that a website is inaccessible to them as blind users. They or their counsel use automated testing tools, such as the WAVE Tool or Axe, to test the website for accessibility compliance. However, these tools are notorious for producing false positives – apparent violations that are not actual barriers and don’t violate the law. Therefore, it is important to assess the merits of the claims. There are many detailed, technical rules regarding the dimensions, slope, position, color, contrast and other aspects of accessible facilities. Thus, it is crucial to be familiar with the ADA standards and relevant rules in this area before making a determination about liability.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) were recently updated to version 2.2, adding new considerations for businesses seeking to make their websites accessible. As most business have an online presence, there are some critical requirements of WCAG 2.2 that all business owners should know.

The WCAG standards, published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are often referenced by courts in the US when deciding whether a website complies with the ADA or Unruh Civil Rights Act. The new version WCAG 2.2 adds the following requirements:

  • 2.4.11/2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured: Ensures keyboard focus indicators (such as the blinking cursor or focus box around buttons and links) remain visible despite pop-ups or other content, with a stricter AAA version demanding complete unobscuring. See the example below:ADA-Website
  • 2.4.13 Focus Appearance: Defines technical standards for the keyboard focus indicator outline for low-vision users.
  • 2.5.7 Dragging Movements: Requires alternative ways to complete actions if they involve dragging, except for essential functionality.
  • 2.5.8 Target Size: Provides minimum size requirements for clickable elements like buttons and links.
  • 3.2.6 Consistent Help: Ensures help functionalities (e.g., company contact details or self-help option) remain in the same place across all pages for screen reader users.
  • 3.3.7 Redundant Entry: Auto-populates or allows re-selection of previously entered information to aid users with cognitive or memory disabilities.
  • 3.3.8/3.3.9 Accessible Authentication: Prohibits cognitive function tests during authentication, with the AAA version removing more exceptions.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Pacific Trial Attorneys, as legal counsel, have filed hundreds of lawsuits for alleged violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq. and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Based in Newport Beach, CA, Pacific Trial Attorneys is a law firm representing plaintiffs in a large number of accessibility lawsuits against businesses, often focused on website issues.

Generally, these lawsuits are filed by serial plaintiffs through their attorneys. Serial plaintiffs file numerous (sometimes hundreds) of lawsuits, often similar in nature. Pacific Trial Attorneys has historically filed such litigation on behalf of one of these plaintiffs:

  • Cheryl Thurston
  • Brittany Mejico
  • Dominick Martin
  • Rusty Rendon
  • Luis Licea
  • Isabel Rendon
  • Drew Hunthausen
  • Walter Mitchell
  • Anita Ogletree

These lawsuit show no signs of stopping. Each lawsuit includes a summons as a cover page informing you that you have been sued and requiring a response. Next is the complaint itself, which generally looks something like this:

PTA-Complaint

The complaints have often stated in the first paragraph, “As recently recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, ‘The Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy.'”

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Picture1

In March 2022, serial Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) plaintiff Traci Morgan filed a lawsuit against Zarco Hotels Inc., alleging that the hotel’s website was not accessible in violation of the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff alleged she was blind, and that the Hollywood Hotel’s website was not compatible with software that scans the website pages and reads them aloud to her. Morgan had filed hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits in the past, represented by notorious law firm Potter Handy, LLP (AKA Center for Disability Access).

JMBM’s ADA Compliance and Defense team, led by Stuart K. Tubis, Esq. and Martin Orlick Esq., represented the hotel’s owner, Zarco Hotels, Inc. After investigating the website’s underlying code at the outset of the case using website experts at Accessible Crew and finding that the website met or exceeded WCAG 2.1 Level AA Standards, they concluded that the claims lacked merit and that the website was, in fact, accessible.

These facts were presented to Morgan’s attorneys in technical detail, with a request that the lawsuit be dropped. Morgan refused.

It is not uncommon for ADA plaintiffs who file hundreds of lawsuits to refuse to drop lawsuits, even when they lack merit. Instead, they often try to pressure the defendant into settlement to avoid expensive litigation. Zarco Hotels was not intimidated and instructed JMBM to file a motion for summary judgment on its behalf, which was filed on August 18, 2022. Facing a likely defeat, Morgan finally dismissed the lawsuit before the motion could be heard. Continue ›

Published on: | by and

On June 12, 2023, the California Assembly’s Judicial Committee re-drafted the content of an existing bill, AB1757, to pertain specifically to website accessibility and the adoption of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.1 into disabled access law. AB1757 specifically permits plaintiffs the right to sue businesses if the business’s website fails to “meet all of the Success Criteria set forth in the” WCAP 2.1 guidelines. Furthermore, AB1757 also allows the business to sue its website developer for any of these failures.

Most significantly, a plaintiff who prevails under AB1757 will be entitled to collect all damages, including, but not limited to, any statutory damages and attorney’s fees paid as a result of a lawsuit.

Why is This Significant for Not Only California Businesses, but Potentially Every Website Owner in the U.S.?

Because the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not have official guidelines regarding website accessibility, it is very possible, if not inevitable, that AB1757’s impact will stretch far-beyond California law, and potentially be adopted as the governing website accessibility guidelines of the entire nation.

Who Does AB1757 Apply To? Continue ›

Published on: | by

typing-1024x681Special districts are independent, governmental agencies or entities established to deliver specialized services to the community, including health, safety, and well-being. Think fire departments, sewer/water districts, and parks departments.

Often special districts use private, outside companies to manage parts of the special district’s operations, such as hosting and maintenance of websites. Under Title II of the ADA, public sector websites are required to be accessible for persons with disabilities. Most commonly, this requires that the website be coded properly to be compatible with screen reader software, which enables blind users who rely on that software to listen to, use and navigate the website.

Disabled plaintiffs can, and often do, file lawsuits against public sector entities for violation of the ADA when websites or other elements are not accessible. Penalties for noncompliance can be severe. Typically, an ADA plaintiff will seek injunctive relief (a court order requiring compliance), attorneys’ fees, and in some states (including California and New York) statutory damages. In California, for example, statutory damages of $4,000 per occurrence can add up quickly. Large class action lawsuits can reach into the millions. Continue ›

Published on: | by

A group known as the United African Asian Abilities Club (UAAAC), through its attorney David Wakefield, has been filing a large number of lawsuits against apartment complexes. The largely boilerplate lawsuits, filed mainly in Los Angeles and Southern California, allege violations of the Fair Housing Act due to accessibility conditions at the apartment property and/or website.

Below is a sample version of one of the group’s lawsuits, which is similar to others it has filed:

A copy of a lawsuit filed by David Wakefield

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Recently Thomas Dorobiala, through his law firm Apex Trial Law, has been sending a large number of complaint letters to various types of businesses alleging that the business’ website fails to comply with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Specifically, the letter states that Mr. Dorobiala is hearing impaired and “unable to fully access your website because the website is not fully accessible to the hearing-impaired.” Generally, the letter will reference a video available on the website and the lack of closed captions available for that video. The letter is usually signed by Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq. or Thomas W. Kohler, Esq.

The Department of Justice has not yet clarified exactly what a website requires to be compliant with the law. The WCAG 2.1 AA standards were published by the nongovernmental W3C organization and are not legally binding. However, many businesses and some courts refer to them to help determine if features on a website are accessible. Generally, websites should be coded so that they are compatible for screen reading software, which blind users will use to listen to the website’s content. Hearing impaired users often seek closed captioning for video content. For more on website accessibility, see our blog here or the W3C introduction to WCAG standards here. Continue ›

by
Posted in: Websites
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Recently, Pacific Trial Attorneys has been pursuing claims against craft breweries throughout California for alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Unruh Act website violations.

Pacific Trial Attorneys is a well-known plaintiff’s law firm that has filed hundreds of ADA lawsuits against various businesses, often using the same few disabled plaintiffs, such as Dominick Martin and Rusty Rendon. The lawsuits essentially state that the craft brewery’s website is not accessible for blind users, and thus, violates the ADA and/or California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The letter generally looks like this:

Pacific-Trial-Attorneys-1024x996

Generally, individuals with vision limitations use screen reading software that scans a webpage and reads it aloud to them. Websites can be coded in such a way as to be more or less compatible with screen reading software. Continue ›

by
Posted in: Websites
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In a recent decision by Judge William H. Orrick, the court reviewed a website for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and found that minor imperfections on a website that do not meaningfully hinder access to the business are insufficient to constitute ADA violations. Gomez v. Trinitas Cellars LLC, Case No. Case No. 3:21-cv-09006-WHO, Doc # 37 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022.

The ADA was passed into law in 1990, well before the popularization of the internet. Since then, of course, the internet has become an inescapable part of everyday life in America. The ADA, however, contains no mention of the internet. The closest it gets are generalized principles requiring businesses to provide “auxiliary aids and services” and ensure “effective communication.”

Continue ›