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."
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
The technical word for this is Barratry and is a debarring offense.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.