7 ms·

This already happens in the US with ADA laws, and it will happen with California's new privacy and wage transparency laws. Unfortunately every time you create a

by pnw 4y ago

This already happens in the US with ADA laws, and it will happen with California's new privacy and wage transparency laws. Unfortunately every time you create a new law with a private right of action, lawyers will monetize it at industrial scale. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-disabilities-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-d...

munk-a 4y ago
Well, a lot of corporate compliance in the US is, by design, set up to be private action instigated. Unless you're running directly afoul of the EPA or some other government organization then the enforcement instigation is meant to be triggered by harm to an individual that seeks redress. This is one of many choices around enforcement that's available - and it seems to be much more generally palatable to Americans than increased government enforcement resources (like the government employing accessibility agents to review websites for compliance). If you're small and everybody likes you this system often lets you get away with lots of violations - but when you grow in size or if someone is purposefully targeting you it does mean that they can shine an "unfair" amount of light on the particulars of your practice to make sure you're compliant. At the end of the day the good news is that judges have a very central role in mediating these disputes and if complaints are clearly irrational and made in bad faith they'll usually be thrown out - the bad news is that it takes a fair amount of money to get the gears on this process turning and there's no guarantee you'll ever get any of it back.
- duxup 4y ago
  Have many judges thrown out accessibility lawsuits?
anaisbetts 4y ago
You might say that this is bad (and on its face, it certainly does feel that way), but OTOH, it rapidly resulted in an enormous quality-of-life change for disabled people, it is the reason that the US is vastly more accessible than many other places
- knaekhoved 4y ago
  - anaisbetts 4y ago
    Citation needed?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      We should also have citations for all positions, for example that disability access does not reduce access, such as in the case of UC Berkeley removing 20,000 free video courses. Making things more expensive is also a kind of loss of access; but we must have empiricism to know the weight of this argument and not merely that there may be some legitimacy behind it.
  - uranium 4y ago
    That's a bit of a stretch. The point of the ADA and similar laws is to improve access for people with disabilities. Does it increase costs? Yeah, it does. Are the costs "vast"? Generally not; it depends a lot on the situation. Does it make life worse for people without disabilities? That's mixed. Those who bear the compliance costs get some disadvantages. However, lots of people who aren't strictly speaking disabled benefit from the accessibility and usability improvements of captioning, wheelchair ramps, improved light switches, grab rails, etc. Making your business/website/rental-apartment more accessible, even where it's not required, may end up making you more money as your clientele grows and pay for itself. And of course we all end up with disabilities if we live long enough; let's hope we all last to the point that we appreciate the ramps, larger text, captions, etc.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Is also rapidly resulted in a quality-of-life change for the vast majority of people, It should be noted that it was an insignificant quality of life change for the vast majority of people, and that if laws didn't inconvenience people we wouldn't need any. It's too bad that we can't help the disabled by giving everybody ice cream, but that's the situation we're in.
no_butterscotch 4y ago
There was a disabled guy in the Bay Area going around suing all sorts of restaurants and other places if they didn't have ramps. Small hole in the wall restaurants couldn't afford renovations and had to just close, resulting in more Mc-chain restaurants moving in that can afford to play ball. Disabled people need access, but I (perhaps controversially) don't think they need access to 100% of the things. I'm reminded of that article from a few years ago "hiking has an able-ist problem" because hiking trails weren't wheelchair accessible. We can't fix all the things for people in wheelchairs (paved trails up half-dome?) or people who are blind (should the trails have megaphones every 10 feet saying "watch your step here because there's rocks"?).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  The disabled litigant is of course bottom feeding scum, but the real fault is with the law itself.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    No, the fault is the person who abuses it. That's a choice. The law wasn't created with abuse in mind and while you could claim it should have been written better That's just a mistake. Only one party here is purposeful in their actions
    - xbar 4y ago
      Maybe the law isn't well written.
    - redox99 4y ago
      What abuse in mind? I don't know what the law says, but based on what the other comment claims, the law requires ramps? I don't see why demanding that places have ramps as the law requires constitutes "abuse" to you.
- 4y ago
ahtihn 4y ago
> Unfortunately every time you create a new law with a private right of action, lawyers will monetize it at industrial scale. Why "unfortunately"? It seems to me this is the intended outcome. It's how these laws actually get enforced.
- bell-cot 4y ago

by pnw 4y ago

munk-a 4y ago

Well, a lot of corporate compliance in the US is, by design, set up to be private action instigated. Unless you're running directly afoul of the EPA or some other government organization then the enforcement instigation is meant to be triggered by harm to an individual that seeks redress. This is one of many choices around enforcement that's available - and it seems to be much more generally palatable to Americans than increased government enforcement resources (like the government employing accessibility agents to review websites for compliance). If you're small and everybody likes you this system often lets you get away with lots of violations - but when you grow in size or if someone is purposefully targeting you it does mean that they can shine an "unfair" amount of light on the particulars of your practice to make sure you're compliant. At the end of the day the good news is that judges have a very central role in mediating these disputes and if complaints are clearly irrational and made in bad faith they'll usually be thrown out - the bad news is that it takes a fair amount of money to get the gears on this process turning and there's no guarantee you'll ever get any of it back.

duxup 4y ago
Have many judges thrown out accessibility lawsuits?

anaisbetts 4y ago

You might say that this is bad (and on its face, it certainly does feel that way), but OTOH, it rapidly resulted in an enormous quality-of-life change for disabled people, it is the reason that the US is vastly more accessible than many other places

knaekhoved 4y ago
- anaisbetts 4y ago
  Citation needed?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    We should also have citations for all positions, for example that disability access does not reduce access, such as in the case of UC Berkeley removing 20,000 free video courses. Making things more expensive is also a kind of loss of access; but we must have empiricism to know the weight of this argument and not merely that there may be some legitimacy behind it.
- uranium 4y ago
  That's a bit of a stretch. The point of the ADA and similar laws is to improve access for people with disabilities. Does it increase costs? Yeah, it does. Are the costs "vast"? Generally not; it depends a lot on the situation. Does it make life worse for people without disabilities? That's mixed. Those who bear the compliance costs get some disadvantages. However, lots of people who aren't strictly speaking disabled benefit from the accessibility and usability improvements of captioning, wheelchair ramps, improved light switches, grab rails, etc. Making your business/website/rental-apartment more accessible, even where it's not required, may end up making you more money as your clientele grows and pay for itself. And of course we all end up with disabilities if we live long enough; let's hope we all last to the point that we appreciate the ramps, larger text, captions, etc.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Is also rapidly resulted in a quality-of-life change for the vast majority of people, It should be noted that it was an insignificant quality of life change for the vast majority of people, and that if laws didn't inconvenience people we wouldn't need any. It's too bad that we can't help the disabled by giving everybody ice cream, but that's the situation we're in.

no_butterscotch 4y ago

There was a disabled guy in the Bay Area going around suing all sorts of restaurants and other places if they didn't have ramps. Small hole in the wall restaurants couldn't afford renovations and had to just close, resulting in more Mc-chain restaurants moving in that can afford to play ball. Disabled people need access, but I (perhaps controversially) don't think they need access to 100% of the things. I'm reminded of that article from a few years ago "hiking has an able-ist problem" because hiking trails weren't wheelchair accessible. We can't fix all the things for people in wheelchairs (paved trails up half-dome?) or people who are blind (should the trails have megaphones every 10 feet saying "watch your step here because there's rocks"?).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
baggy_trough 4y ago
The disabled litigant is of course bottom feeding scum, but the real fault is with the law itself.
- themitigating 4y ago
  No, the fault is the person who abuses it. That's a choice. The law wasn't created with abuse in mind and while you could claim it should have been written better That's just a mistake. Only one party here is purposeful in their actions
  - xbar 4y ago
    Maybe the law isn't well written.
  - redox99 4y ago
    What abuse in mind? I don't know what the law says, but based on what the other comment claims, the law requires ramps? I don't see why demanding that places have ramps as the law requires constitutes "abuse" to you.
4y ago

ahtihn 4y ago

> Unfortunately every time you create a new law with a private right of action, lawyers will monetize it at industrial scale. Why "unfortunately"? It seems to me this is the intended outcome. It's how these laws actually get enforced.

bell-cot 4y ago