Prenda's Old Copyright Trolls Are Suing People Again 124
New submitter Hokan writes: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele, formerly of Prenda, are suing again. Each have started nonprofits, in Minnesota and Illinois, claiming to defend disabled people, and they are suing small businesses for ADA violations. You may recall that a District Court judge issued sanctions against Prenda for their attempts to file copyright suits against a broad swath of internet users. Their new practices take a similar tack: sue a small business and generously offer to collect a settlement somewhat lower than the amount it would cost to to make changes to their establishment. A new group is fighting back by creating "an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation."
Disbar. (Score:2)
Re:Disbar. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, what they're doing is (well, at least technically) legal, so disbarment is not much of an option. :(
Now a hit man or two on the other hand...
Re:Disbar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One would hope this would be the case, but the BSA has been operating under similar conditions for decades now...
Well, similar-enough, anyway. The BSA would use the same mechanisms - demand that a victim company submit to an expensive audit/"true-up" session, and would then start litigation if ignored or refused.
Even if they were, it would be different (Score:2)
In the case of the BSA, you can easily identify all legitimate plaintiffs - there is usually only 1 per possible violation - and it or they can authorize the BSA to act on its behalf.
Even if every ADA-advocacy-group signed on with Prenda, Prenda could still not speak for individuals who were not members of these groups, and it could not speak for those who were members of the groups unless the individuals had authorized the groups to act as their legal representatives in such cases.
In short, Prenda is sayin
Re: (Score:2)
Better call Saul.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Disbar. (Score:4, Informative)
I would imagine that most lawyers that file legitimate ADA lawsuits aren't disabled. They file them on behalf of someone who is. From the article:
Hansmeier registered the Disability Support Alliance in Minnesota in July 2014 and listed himself as the nonprofit's agent. Its members, all of whom live with a disability, include Wong, of Minneapolis, and three Marshall residents.
He's finding disabled people who get paid to complain, creating the "legitimacy" of the ADA complaint. According to the article, Minnesota in their infinite wisdom made it possible for a plaintiff to file criminal misdemeanor charges against someone for ADA violations with penalties up to 90 days in jail and up to a $1000 fine.
The goal should always be about accessibility to all, not making money through settlements because of inconvenience. Only the most egregious cases of non-compliance should result in any criminal charges, and even then it shouldn't be done on the behalf of the filing plaintiff.
Re:Disbar. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading a case, I think it was in Reader's Digest, where a Lawyer was 'touring' through small towns, then suing their main streets(more precisely, all the businesses on said main street) for ADA violations, doing much the same as presented in this article.
Despite being in a wheelchair, I believe he did end up being disbarred from the practice. What happened to him is that he did it enough that the towns found each other, formed a group, and basically caught the dude lying. As a lawyer representing himself, what could be considered 'mistakes' added up to him not doing 'due diligence'.
For example, he sued a hardware store for not having a wheelchair ramp. Yet said hardware store had had such a ramp for decades before he came by. Once this was noticed, they started going through his claims, collated from the various lawsuits, and started noting up discrepancies. For example, him suing a store for not being accessible inside - when the store had been closed when he supposedly visited due to illness by the owner/operator. Basically, they figured out that he stayed in the hotel for a couple days, then sued everybody on the street, without having actually attempted to patronize their business. A number of businesses actually had accommodations for him - he would have simply had to ask, which is very much allowed under the ADA.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more or less my understanding of the law. A business doesn't HAVE to install a ramp, make doorways accessible, etc if they have always been that way prior to ADA becoming law.
If the business remodels or alters the front facade for instance, then that results in the need to bring things up to code/compliance or make alternate accommodations. A front door doesn't have t
Re: (Score:1)
I once met someone who was disabled and who boasted to me about his new found source of income working with a lawyer filing ADA lawsuits and collecting. I find it totally disgusting. I think this has also been in the local news about how a lot of little businesses are being shaken down by these grubby lawyers and can't afforded the exorbitant amounts of money. Most of these businesses had absolutely no clue that their store was in any violation before getting the crap sued out of them. No friendly warn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RICO also requires some group affiliation, like a cartel, or a group of companies colluding.
This is just purely criminal threat with intent to extort.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Technically legal" is too low a standard. An attorney can lose his license for any number of violations of ethics, not just of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically legal" is too low a standard. An attorney can lose his license for any number of violations of ethics, not just of the law.
Lawyer ethics. there's an oxymoron for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not disbarred for this, disbarred for their previous shenanigans [popehat.com]. .
Re: (Score:2)
If disbarred, would they just get a junior lawyer to do their dirty work for them while still collecting the misbegotten profits?
On the other hand, these guys do face a non-zero chance of jail time as well from the previous shenanigans, so that could put a damper on things.
Re: (Score:1)
Except there's the whole criminal contempt factor as well which carries a maximum term of life
https://youtu.be/5FDtJlZbCbQ?t... [youtu.be] or for a text summary http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/... [popehat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the odds of life imprisonment are negligable. Probably they get a month or two at worst, which then gets appealed.
Re: (Score:1)
"Not disbarred for this, disbarred for their previous shenanigans"
With a side of a guilty criminal contempt verdict. I'm hoping for life imprisonment.
Re:Disbar. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is malicious prosecution. They're setting settlement lower than cost, meaning they're not confident they can win a high-cost lawsuit. If they ever initiate prosecution, it's straight malicious prosecution; holding the threat and strategically avoiding prosecution is coercion and legal racketeering, possibly criminal directly under the RICO act, supported by pattern behavior which indicates that they believe their activities constitute malicious prosecution.
In other words: they're generating circumstantial evidence enough to demonstrate malicious intent and abuse of the legal system in court. A good prosecuting lawyer can raise a lawsuit here and argue, legally, that these people are intentionally avoiding entanglement in an actual lawsuit, and so believe themselves to be pursuing a criminal action, and are avoiding that action but using the threat as leverage for racketeering--they are attempting to extort a broad base of victims for money through illegal abuse of the courts.
Re:Disbar. (Score:5, Informative)
The technical word for this is Barratry and is a debarring offense.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought legal barratry had to target the same defendant repeatedly.
Wrong! (Score:2)
What they are doing is well within the regulations preventing ambulance chasing. Those are ethics violations. There is actually a good amount of flexibility in what an attorney can be disbarred for in almost every State. The issue is really getting the action started. This [wa.gov] one, pulled at random, says (pardon the formatting, I'm lazy but you have the original link).
(1) His or her conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in which case the record of conviction shall be conclusive evidence.
(2) Willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him or her to do or forbear an act connected with, or in the course of, his or her profession, which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.
(3) Violation of his or her oath as an attorney, or of his or her duties as an attorney and counselor.
(4) Corruptly or willfully, and without authority, appearing as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding.
(5) Lending his or her name to be used as attorney and counselor by another person who is not an attorney and counselor.
(6) For the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her relations as an attorney or counselor at law, or otherwise, and whether the same constitute a felony or misdemeanor or not; and if the act constitute a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.
(7) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact made in his or her application for admission or in support thereof.
(8) Disbarment by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction.
(9) Practicing law with or in cooperation with a disbarred or suspended attorney, or maintaining an office for the practice of law in a room or office occupied or used in whole or in part by a disbarred or suspended attorney, or permitting a disbarred or suspended attorney to use his or her name for the practice of law, or practicing law for or on behalf of a disbarred or suspended attorney, or practicing law under any arrangement or understanding for division of fees or compensation of any kind with a disbarred or suspended attorney or with any person not a licensed attorney.
(10) Gross incompetency in the practice of the profession.
(11) Violation of the ethics of the profession.
Items 10 and 11 are why attorneys don't pursue cases of people spitting on sidewalks even such a Law exists. They are also the reason that a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that will act as a deterrent is the death penalty (I am normally against the use of the DP but I will make an exception with these psychopaths).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and disabled. I bet Tonya Harding could use the dough.
I'm not sure. Tonya Harding has been showing up on that Worlds Dumbest TV show for years. That must pay pretty well to have that associated with your name.
Yes, for the record I do watch that show every now and then. Some times it is entertaining to watch some drunk redneck jump a beer truck on a riding mower.
As much as I hate Prenda... (Score:2, Insightful)
...most websites are an accessibility nightmare.
Re:As much as I hate Prenda... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even for people who aren't disabled at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if one prefers to view the web as 1990's GeoCities home pages, that is one's prerogative.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if one prefers to view the web as 1990's GeoCities home pages, that is one's prerogative.
Well, if one prefers to view the web as the modern equivalent of the blink tag, a disorganized mess rather than useful, consistent and entertaining information, then that is one's prerogative.
Most so-called "professional" web designers wouldn't know what usability was if it jumped up and bit them. Usually endlessly obsessing over minor graphical elements while completely losing sight of the big picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Good accessibility is really hard to obtain.
Should we sue an Art Museum? Because blind people cannot see the paintings, and are not allowed to touch them?
Today's modern web is not so much about displaying documents that will link to their references, but more of an application front end engine.
Back in the early 00's We could make a nice website that looks good and is accessible. Today that is much harder, as the usage of a web page, is less of a poster board for static information, but much more interactiv
Re: (Score:2)
...most websites are an accessibility nightmare.
That's one of many reasons why our business website doesn't use javascript. What's seen can be read by a screen reader.
Happens all the time in California... (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine used to own a business in CA, and his place got stung by a lawyer for a faceless handicapped person who demanded $10,000 in fees because the slope for a ramp was just a hair off the 1:12 (one foot for every inch drop), the door closer was "too heavy" (even though there was a push button to open it), and some other tiny details, such as not having a handicapped shower open to the public.
He paid the fees, then got stung again a year later because even though he had plenty of handicapped parking, there was an issue about at least two handcapped vans have to be able to open their ramps out at the same time... and he only had one handicapped spot with 4-6 feet to the side of it for that. So, the lawyer was demanding another 100 C-notes.
He closed up shop, and now has an antique shop in rural Texas, and making far better cash there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I think a bigger reason is that cost of living had become too high elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The same ADA laws apply in Texas though. Texas is many dimensions away from being a utopia. It's certainly not the place to move to in order to escape irrational lawyers or to find more personal freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
then got stung again a year later because even though he had plenty of handicapped parking, there was an issue about at least two handcapped vans have to be able to open their ramps out at the same time... and he only had one handicapped spot with 4-6 feet to the side of it for that.
Yep, thems the rules, been in place since what? 92? If his parking had been built AFTER 92, he could get the contractor to fix it. It's their job to build within compliance. Before that, well fixing the problem would cost less than the 100 c-notes. Because all you have to do is replace one spot with a ramp area ( and maybe do a curb cutout)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of business is required to have showers?
You have an odd definition of "plenty".
If his problem in CA was with the federal ADA, that law doesn't change in TX. (The various fringe theori
Why Would You Settle? (Score:1)
Their new practices take a similar tack: sue a small business and generously offer to collect a settlement somewhat lower than the amount it would cost to to make changes to their establishment.
Whether you agree or disagree with the ADA, how does it make any sense to settle? The business is still in non-compliance, paying a random lawyer doesn't change that fact, some other random lawyer (or the government itself) can still step in and sue the business, and the cycle repeats, right? Am I missing something as to why it would ever make sense to simply pay off the crummy lawyer instead of making the required changes?
Re:Why Would You Settle? (Score:4, Informative)
In most cases making the changes costs MUCH less than a lawyer. Last I heard that average cost for bringing places up to compliance was less than a thousand bucks.
In some cases where they did modifications that contractors told them were in compliance (but weren't) the business can make THEM pay/do the necessary upgrades.
A local hospital had that issue, they were told their new parking lot was in compliance, but it wasn't. The company that did the lot had to fix it for them.
I bet some of these business owners think it costs more than it actually does to fix compliance issues because they don't have good information. Advocacy groups for disabled folks have been doing accessibility Audits...for FREE, for years.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Last I heard that average cost for bringing places up to compliance was less than a thousand bucks.
I work in the construction industry renovating large commercial and public buildings. The cost of required ADA work can easily double the cost of a $10 million project. Elevators and reconfiguring entire buildings so that bathroom stalls are 5 feet wide isn't cheap. Let alone grading land so that there's nowhere with excessive cross slope. Luckily most of our projects are able to cap ADA costs at 20% of the pr
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been cheaper for us as a country to buy a van and 24x7 attendant for every single disabled person in the country than it is to comply with ADA in construction.
While that's probably true for the current number of actual disabled people, I suspect that if you provided transportation and a servant for every disabled person, you'd multiply the number of "disabled" people by at least an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I heard that average cost for bringing places up to compliance was less than a thousand bucks.
The average cost is irrelevant, because these trolls can select what businesses the extort. It's not going to do them any good to extort a business that could make the changes for a thousand bucks. They're going to look for businesses whose would be as high as possible. The first example in TFA says the changes would cost $20,000, and the trolls are trying to extort $5,500.
So you might say, "the ADA is there for a reason, why should these businesses get away with not complying?" Except that these extort
Re:Why Would You Settle? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is often the requirements are difficult or near impossible to Implement, hunse why these guys use this to make money. It is a law designed to force people to fail, because it is too overreaching. There is a wide area of disabilities that the ADA covers. So chances are you may be missing some, or implemented incorrectly. That Ramp may be too much of a slope... However if you go any further it could disrupt traffic, or be a tripping hazard. Paying the fine, is sometimes cheaper and less handle then trying to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are exclusions and exemptions for existing structures where accessibility is not feasible.
Paying a single lawyer for a single case is not going to do any good if you look like a money machine to other lawyers. Now, if the structure was built after the law was enacted and you did the work yourself (or you designer and contractor are outside of the statue of repose for their services), then it could be fantastically expensive to fix. It's still probably cheaper than multiple lawsuits, though, and the bu
Re: (Score:2)
This was in the Minneapolis paper today and one of the businesses is a bowling alley. The owner has temporary ramps he sets up for the rare occasion where a wheelchair bound person wants to bowl.
Why would he consider settling? For the same reason these douchebag lawyers went after him -- they know that full ADA compliance could eliminate his profitability for a year or two, and if he gets these guys to go away he's probably never going to hear about this again -- how many people in a small town are wheelc
They must have heard about Thomas Mundy (Score:2)
http://popehat.com/2009/01/06/... [popehat.com]
And decided to make a factory out of his one-man operation.
Hey, maybe he'll sue them for infringing on his copyrighted business model.
Buttfucking disabled people for money (Score:2)
Let's see if I get this straight;
They find some (minor) ADA violation, sue the company and offer a cheaper settlement.
Now the company no longer has to fix the ADA violation and can't get sued for it again?
Just trying to figure out exactly how many parties are getting screwed by these "lawyers".
Re: (Score:2)
Now the company no longer has to fix the ADA violation and can't get sued for it again?
I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they could prevent anyone else from suing over the same issue so long as the company remains non-compliant. If you take an action which harms a group of people, you can't make up for it by settling with just one of them; the rest would retain the right to sue for their own portions of the damages. I imagine the same applies to violations of the ADA, even though there is no actual damage on which to base a legitimate lawsuit.
This is what the ADA is for (Score:1)
The ADA was created as a racket for lawyers to squeeze money out of small businesses. There's no way for people to really comply with the ADA as everyone has their own special illness what requires special provisions that no human could possibility satisfy all of them. This is closed as working as designed.
that's what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
If you pass sledgehammer legislation like the ADA, common sense behavior gets replaced with lawyering and bad things happen. And the people who passed the legislation in the first place say that their intentions were good, blame lawyers and blame the people who opposed the legislation in the first place, and finally call for more legislation to fix the problems that the first legislation caused.
This is the result:
https://regulatorystudies.colu... [gwu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
That touches on a thought I've often had: if "ignorance of the law is no excuse", then I'd really like to see a physical copy of all the laws by which I'm required to abide - federal, state, and local. I'm sorta surprised no one's played this as a tactic - I would have expected some grandstanding politician to roll out wheelbarrows of paperwork to make a point.
A dose of "Social Justice" irony never hurt anyone (Score:2)
Don't pay the dane-geld (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike a copyright claim that only has one potential plaintiff, EVERY disabled person in America is a potential plaintiff, as well as your state's Attorney General and the US Attorney General.
Plus, once you've been sued, you can no longer claim ignorance if someone else sues you over the same issue later.
The only proper response is to say "thank you for informing us of the problem" and if there is an actual violation, fix it or find some legal work-around (You have excess bathrooms that aren't ADA-compliant? Close them down. Is there a way to apply for a waiver? Apply. Etc. etc.). But do not pay the dane-geld [poetryloverspage.com] or you will never get rid of the "Dane".
Oh, and yes, these guys should be disbarred for offering to settle a claim when they know good and well they cannot speak for all potential plaintiffs AND they know good and well that if a settlement is reached, it will at least temporarily defeat the purpose and intent of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of sorry I commented elsewhere as I would mod you up if I could.
Cousins? (Score:2)
Is this ADA-helpful new company related to Paul Hansmeier and John Steele? That would make sense.
ADA headache (Score:5, Interesting)
Our org got hit with an ADA lawsuit recently. Our group's focus is on the web side of the lawsuit, although it encompasses many other aspects. One problem is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for what an "ADA-compliant" website is.
For one, the visual-impaired assisting "reading" software is all different. Each brand reads HTML/CSS/JavaScript differently. In theory they shouldn't need to read JavaScript-generated content, but in practice they sometimes do. And building a website without reliance on JavaScript can be really tricky and limiting. If we need to accommodate all brands of reading software, we are truly F'd and might as well file bankruptcy now.
And whether an image is merely "decorative" or "informative" is fuzzy and subject to interpretation. We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
And we have boatloads of content that needs to be redone.
Where's the Tums! I should sue the ADA lawyers for not being "stomach friendly". Indigestion is a disability.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of things where the industry needs to adopt "best practices" then buy off Congress to immunize those who follow those practices.
Did I say "buy off," sorry, I meant "lobby."
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, there is a hard-and-fast rules for what an ADA-compliant website is, you just have to answer "yes" do a simple question: "Will a blind person be able to navigate, read, and use your web site to its full extent?".
Your whole comment is just an ignorant rant, the equivalent of an architect designing a public building with stairs at every door for no reason at all, and then ranting that "evil ADA" is forcing him to put ramps. Yes, modifying an existing building or website to comply with ADA is difficu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's NOT a simple question because it depends on what software they are using, as I described. The software authors can make it do anything or not do anything they want.
Using your analogy, it would be like different brands of wheelchairs are capable of different things. When a building is being designed, it would have to target a series of wheelchair features to accommodate such wheelchairs. But i
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: rude tone of response, not of "request".
Re: (Score:2)
It is easy, just assume the website visitor have the simplest type of "wheelchair" and all other ones will not have problems. That means, just disable css/javascript/flash/java on your browser and try to use your own site, if you can than any blind person will also be able to.
Re: (Score:1)
Management doesn't want to give up certain functionality. They want SOLID PROOF we must cater to the Lowest Common Denominator to not get sued more. I have none. I have no statistics on sue probabilities to give them. (This includes out of court settlements, not just court cases.)
Further, ease-of-reading is a matter of degree. Some pages if you look at raw HTML are readable verbally, but just not very "friendly". They are not outright "wrong", just not "smooth" to read that way. Such difficulty level is a c
Re: (Score:1)
Far from it. Many screenreaders are absolute garbage. You would think that they would just read the DOM from top to bottom but sadly there is a lot of 'intelligence' in them. Fortunately in our jurisdiction it is fine if you can show you tried to make it accessible, if the disabled person is using some crappy program that is not your fault.
Re: (Score:1)
By definition, no. A blind person will never be able to navigate, read, and use a website to its full extent. Don't be a fucking dumbass.
Can reasonable effort be made to communicate the important content of a website to someone who is visually impaired? Yes. Does that mean they should have full functionality of the site? No, that's just stupid. What if one of the primary functions is image editing? How exactly do you expect that to go down?
Re: (Score:2)
We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
Are those images you're tossing out stock photography images? Because believe me, those may look super cool and super useful to web site designers, but stock photos are not only bland and cliche, they actually look super insincere to the user who is inundated by them on every company web site.
Re: (Score:1)
"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more. Either way, my org doesn't want to pay for "boosted" styling even if it were the "right" choice, marketing-wise. Not my call. They want cheap, I give them cheap. (It's mostly a side topic to ADA anyhow.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more.
I think you misunderstood what I said, and that we're in agreement on some level.
Assuming you're not working for BMW or Gucci, I believe that having no graphics at all can be much better than purchasing a bunch of royalty-free perfect-looking insincere photographs from some stock photography web site.
The same goes for special animations and perfect-looking videos. Barring a few exceptions, I don't believe those effects are necessary to make a web site useful and valuable to users.
And throwing out all those
Re: (Score:1)
I have to disagree. Text-only is really boring. It's like a bus with no windows. Even through the dumpy parts of town, windows are preferred by most humans to no windows. Similarly, cheap graphics are often better than no graphics, as long as they are not overly obnoxious.
Our tentative plan is to keep graphics small, sparse, and vague, but we have a lot of old junk to revamp and clip out images from.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget, many of us use noscript, so we end up seeing blank pages for sites like that and move on to a competitor instead.
Re: (Score:2)
A website should always be navigable without JavaScript. One that isn't, is a sign of laziness, pure and simple. The use of JavaScript should be limited to eye candy, and in many cases CSS will do what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
But then you're requiring that web designers actually *design* their web pages. That's unreasonable when some third party can do it for you while also including no-thought advertisement revenue at the same time.
Re: (Score:1)
We have special domain requirements that are difficult to do without JavaScript. Not impossible, but difficult. With enough time and/or money, it's all "solve-able", but as usual, nobody wants to pay for that much rework and will probe potential alternatives first.
Re: (Score:2)
Problems that are difficult but solvable and lucrative are what every entrepreneur hopes to find.
Re: (Score:1)
These kinds of things generally require domain-specific tuning and shaping, especially in terms of legacy systems and legacy content. But, if you can somehow concoct a slick tool that simplifies such issues, we may yet beat a path to your door.
Re: (Score:3)
Our org got hit with an ADA lawsuit recently. Our group's focus is on the web side of the lawsuit, although it encompasses many other aspects. One problem is that there are no hard-and-fast rules for what an "ADA-compliant" website is.
Some honest questions here, as I am genuinely curious, as I'd guess you've already thought of these things and have reasons why they wouldn't work:
1. Is it possible to detect when ADA-compliance is required (e.g. detect when software is in use? Is it a different browser, or browser plugin that could be detected?) and present them with an accessible-specific site, kinda like how it's common to present users with a mobile-specific site? I have no idea about the technical aspects of it, but I think the comp
Re: (Score:1)
There is no known standard. Each "reader" vendor may send hints via HTTP header variables, but there is no guarantee they will be the same on the next version.
Plus, mirroring all the "regular" content with an ADA version is a bear. Authors would have to be diligent to keep them in sync.
Maybe if we had a clean CMS it may be possible to simply generate the appropriate content format from a single set of content (data), similar to some mobile-friendly presentation techniq
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that sounds like the intended purpose of the ADA. It sounds like you are actually making changes, and not paying off the plaintiffs. I can't understand how it can be legal to settle with a plaintiff who is supposedly bringing a suit on behalf of a general population.
Get a lawyer and fight back (Score:2)
Start filing suits against them for every little thing that is a violation and don't settle. Bury them in paperwork. This image on your website doesn't have an alt tag so it doesn't comply with ADA. Lawsuit. The fluorescent lights in your office flicker and cause me migraines. Another lawsuit. Anything and everything you can think of.
Don't forget chromatic abberation (Score:1)
Blue- and red-pixels adjacent or lined up on top of each other? Unless we are looking at them straight on, those get cross-ways and overlap or no longer line up for those of us wearing thick glasses. Not only can this cause distractions and headaches, but in some cases like a poorly-done bar chart it can actually lead to me reading the bar chart differently than a person with thinner glasses, contacts, or 20/20 vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the colorblind. Using blue and purple on the same chart? You lose because because to many colorblind individuals purple is a conspiracy carried out by color-normals.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, it's a 'feature' of the ADA legislation. Usually, a plaintiff needs to prove damages and the settlement will be based upon that amount. But if the damage consists of some disabled person not being able to buy a greasy hamburger at some shitty restaurant with no handicapped parking, what are the damages?
The solution is to continue to allow such suits. But to have anything awarded over actual damages be required to be placed into a compliance escrow fund. Where, once the business is sued
Re: (Score:2)
It's bullshit. There should be no award for damages. The business should simply be required to fix the problems. If it is not feasible to fix, then the law needs to be fixed.
Lawyers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, the fundamental purpose of the American legal system to keep lawyers wealthy, and judges are nothing but lawyers in robes. Just as dishonest.
My personal experience with lawyers is almost universally bad*, and with judges it's been universally good.
Usually when I talk to lawyers I have to speak slowly, because I can see them crunching the numbers trying to calculate how much money they can make off either me or the case. Amusingly, on a particularly sensitive issue, I received the exact opposite legal advice from two lawyers who happened to be husband and wife (one referred me to the other.) I thought "of course they can't agree on anything, the
Idea Notebook (Score:2)
"Ok, copyright. Got it. Patent? No we'd have to understand science stuff. Asbestos claims? Oversaturated. Same for good ol ambulance chasing. We could run the Nigerian prince scam... yeah put that in the maybe column. What about an actual, old school mafia protection racket? Too messy, plus we look like chodes, no one's going to be scared of us."
"Well the bathroom here has a hand
We had scumbag lawyers like that in New York (Score:3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04... [nytimes.com]
Disabilities Act Prompts Flood of Suits Some Cite as Unfair
By MOSI SECRET
New York Times
APRIL 16, 2012
The lawyers are generally not acting on existing complaints from people with disabilities. Instead, they identify local businesses, like bagel shops and delis, that are not in compliance with the law, and then aggressively recruit plaintiffs from advocacy groups for people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs typically collect $500 for each suit, and each plaintiff can be used several times over. The lawyers, meanwhile, make several thousands of dollars, because the civil rights law entitles them to legal fees from the noncompliant businesses. ...
All of those suits were filed by Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, a lawyer based in Florida, who has a regular group of people with disabilities from whom he selects plaintiffs. One of them, Todd Kreisler, a man in a wheelchair who lives on the East Side of Manhattan, sued 19 businesses over 16 months — a Chinese restaurant, a liquor store and a sandwich shop among them. ...
Mr. Weitz is leading the charge into New York’s courtrooms. Since October 2009, he has sued almost 200 businesses in the state, mostly in Federal District Court in Manhattan. He has eight years of experience filing these suits in Florida, where his practice does not seem to be lagging. Two weeks ago, he brought claims against four Tampa businesses — a strip mall, a convenience store, a bar and a print shop.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03... [nytimes.com]
Judge Rebukes 2 Lawyers Profiting From U.S. Disability Law
By MOSI SECRET
MARCH 29, 2013
Now a Brooklyn federal court judge has ruled squarely against two lawyers who bring most of such lawsuits in New York, writing in a cutting opinion on Thursday that their tactics lacked expertise, possibly violated the rules of professional conduct and were “disingenuous at best.” The judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., denied them legal fees and took the rare step of ordering them to stop filing such cases. ...
Though such arrangements have typically been shielded by confidentiality agreements, Judge Johnson revealed how much money the lawyers — Adam Shore and B. Bradley Weitz — claimed in fees, typically $425 per hour for a total of $15,000 per case even though the cases were so similar that he described them as boilerplate. The two lawyers had filed as many as 10 cases in a single day.
Shakespear was right (Score:1)
Kill all the lawyers. The world would be a better place without them.
The business owners should simply refuse to comply with the court. The second amendment exists for a reason and it isn't for shooting ducks. It is their property and they have the right to construct it as they see fit without violence from the state.
Murica. (Score:1)