3 ms·

I think what you're missing is that the websites may be 100% in compliance with the ADA- the site owners simply can't risk the expense & uncertainty of a lawsui

I think what you're missing is that the websites may be 100% in compliance with the ADA- the site owners simply can't risk the expense & uncertainty of a lawsuit, so they settle. It's (legal) extortion, the law is simply the vehicle by which they do it. And it certainly doesn't make the world a better place for the disabled, it's just a payoff for the attorneys. It is literally the same concept as patent trolling. Maybe a solution would be to change these laws so that the outcome of the lawsuit is a mandated change to ADA standards, but no damages, and parties have to pay their own attorney's fees. That would achieve what you say you're looking for, good faith ADA compliance, without incentivizing strongarm attorneys looking for a quick buck

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Maybe a solution would be to change these laws so that the outcome of the lawsuit is a mandated change to ADA standards, but no damages, We pretty much have this for violations of civil law. The judge says "just make your crap in compliance and we won't fine you" and continues the case to a later date and if it's in compliance by that later date they don't fine you. Of course that doesn't solve the trolls that send a scary looking letter even when no violation exists and hope that the victim settles but it's better than the trolls being able to win in court.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Many (most?) countries follow the "Loser Pays" principle in law-suites. That is, whoever loses the case has to pay both their own and the other sides legal costs. This radically changes incentives, and much of the abuses in the US system just don't occur.
- brewdad 7y ago
  Does this not also disincentivize the little guy from taking on BigCorp? I might be willing to put up tens of thousands of dollars to fight for justice but I can't risk owing millions to BigCorp lawyers if a judge or jury disagrees.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    If you know you're right, you can take on anyone for free! If the issue isn't clear it's more of a gamble. And maybe those issues should often be left out of court.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>Maybe a solution would be to change these laws so that the outcome of the lawsuit is a mandated change to ADA standards, but no damages, We pretty much have this for violations of civil law. The judge says "just make your crap in compliance and we won't fine you" and continues the case to a later date and if it's in compliance by that later date they don't fine you. Of course that doesn't solve the trolls that send a scary looking letter even when no violation exists and hope that the victim settles but it's better than the trolls being able to win in court.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Many (most?) countries follow the "Loser Pays" principle in law-suites. That is, whoever loses the case has to pay both their own and the other sides legal costs. This radically changes incentives, and much of the abuses in the US system just don't occur.

brewdad 7y ago
Does this not also disincentivize the little guy from taking on BigCorp? I might be willing to put up tens of thousands of dollars to fight for justice but I can't risk owing millions to BigCorp lawyers if a judge or jury disagrees.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  If you know you're right, you can take on anyone for free! If the issue isn't clear it's more of a gamble. And maybe those issues should often be left out of court.