Slashdot Mirror
Prenda's Old Copyright Trolls Are Suing People Again
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."
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...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
...most websites are an accessibility nightmare.
Given that they're all probably not disabled, I'm wondering what grounds they have to sue in the first place. But that's why they offer a "settlement" that's less than the cost to defend the suit, so the case never sees the inside of a courtroom. In effect, though, they're using the legal system to extort money out of people and depending on the particulars, that may qualify under RICO statutes. In theory, they might actually be breaking the law.
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.
"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.
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...
Not disbarred for this, disbarred for their previous shenanigans. .
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.
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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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).
Salut,
Jacques
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 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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I missed that. His disability would change my assumptions.
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 saying "settle with us" without saying "but oh by the way there are millions of potential plaintiffs out there who can sue you over this same issue tomorrow."
If that isn't worthy of sanctions by the state bar associations, it should be.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This sort of abuse is rampant with the ADA. It's designed to be abused because it allows private parties to sue in a weird not quite Qui Tam type lawsuit to get people to fix up their buildings. In fact, there are disabled people who make a living by parasitically going from store to store suing the Hell out of small businesses like this.
Is greater accessibility good? Yeah, but it should be brought about through tax credits and government officials initiating action. The money recovered should go into coffers to fund tax credits for businesses that want/need help complying, not lining some disabled, lawyer-loving parasite's wallet or writing a private attorney's paycheck.
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.
Suing businesses for ADA non-compliance is a years old, very successful lawyer scam and none are ever disbarred! Please, let someone come up with actual instances where they have, I would love to hear about them. Remember, the fundamental purpose of the American legal system to keep lawyers wealthy, and judges are nothing but lawyers in robes. Just as dishonest.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...
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...
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.
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 project cost per law, so it's not more than $2 million in most cases. However, that means all future projects at that same place will also have to increase their budget by 20% for ADA work until the site is fully compliant.
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.
The technical word for this is Barratry and is a debarring offense.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
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 extortions are in direct contradiction to that. They're not forcing businesses to comply with ADA, they're allowing business to give them a bribe in order to avoid complying! Now, if they weren't collecting "settlements" then all the PR they're spouting might actually make sense - whether you agree or disagree that they should force ADA compliance is another issue altogether, but that's simply not what they're doing.