6 ms·

> companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't

> companies doing that Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? I mean if my health insurer, for example, couldn't accommodate a disability of mine, especially something as common as low vision or hearing, I'd certainly feel like getting revenge but doesn't everyone feel that way about every health insurer every year or two? If you meant the other way around, like if someone sued me because I was the one essentially locking people with a disability out from using my service I'd probably just take a really logical approach to handling it (for instance, making the accommodation they request). From what I've read the most common outcome in these cases is that the defendant is ordered to make the accommodation. Getting sued or even just threatened with a lawsuit is pretty scary though, if anyone here is facing threat of lawsuit I'd suggest you consult with several attorneys right away but also find a YouTube attorney to set your expectations of the process. It's super easy to get fleeced by your own attorney unless you direct them pretty intentionally.

angst_ridden 4y ago
I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.
- jibe 4y ago
  It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
  - drc500free 4y ago
    Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
  - hedora 4y ago
    That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.
knodi123 4y ago
> Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.
- miki123211 4y ago
  If a disabled person asks for anything, they usually get a generic "we care about your feedback, this is on our radar" response and nothing actually happens. I'm speaking from experience here, I've done quite a few accessibility-related support requests, and getting a human to answer is very often a struggle.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law: I doubt that simply "finding" a website with a video that lacks captions is enough for a viable suit. From Googling, it appears that suits without actual damages are getting thrown out[0], so I'd guess the attorneys running that show are doing something unlawful but not illegal by filing these suits, or maybe something not even unlawful by simply making legal demands without filing. Probably one of the biggest causes for all of this pain is that so many "white collar" violations of public trust are either a) not actually illegal or b) not handled by any law enforcement. The Prenda Law debacle comes to mind though -- these guys spent years terrorizing people with copyright law before anything really came of it but, incredibly, they actually ended up convicted on fairly serious charges. It's super wild to read about, I wonder if they had dialed it back a tiny bit they would have stayed under the radar completely. [0] This doesn't help the defendants in question with their own attorney's fees but does send a message about viability of these garbage suits to the plaintiffs and every other firm looking into it.
drc500free 4y ago
You'll recognize the same rage that there was against the mcdonald's coffee lady. These cases get stoked by tort-reform interests to show "what's wrong with the legal system." It took several decades and a documentary for people to understand they were misled about that personal injury case, it will take a while for them to understand disability law.
- hedora 4y ago
  Those cases are completely different from each other. If McDonalds coffee lady was buying coffees everywhere, checking them with a thermometer, suing because she could have burnt herself, and then used the proceeds to hire more people to do the same in a profit sharing scheme then her case would be comparable to the current ADA abusers in California. Instead, the McDonald's in question had been repeatedly warned by health inspectors, was in violation of corporate policy, and the woman was an actual customer that was hospitalized as a result of the business violating the law.
  - drc500free 4y ago
    1. Refuse to fund enforcement of disability protections, and require citizens to crowdsource it via a bounty program. 2. Label anyone who tries to enforce it an “ADA abuser” and claim they are misusing the system to make money. 3. Disability protections are successfully ignored, corporations make more profit. Usually there’s a “???” in the middle, but this one is pretty straightforward.
    - hedora 4y ago
      I think this a good summary of why civil suits usually can only be brought by a party that actually suffered some sort of harm. (The ADA works that way in 48 states, avoiding abusive suits.)
      - drc500free 4y ago
        Can you define for me what makes the suit abusive? Is the defendant following the law and being wrongfully sued? Or are they breaking the law but should only be held accountable if a disabled person has the energy, time, and money to go through the court system? It’s sounding like “it’s annoying to serve disabled people, businesses should be able to get away with not doing that.” In my mind we are literally dealing with people who are abusing (ignoring) ADA to make a profit, but you are calling the OTHER side profit-seeking abusers.

angst_ridden 4y ago

I believe in making things accessible, and strive to do that on all my projects. I object to abuse of the ADA. Businesses / organizations should be given an opportunity to remediate their web sites before an automated script files an erroneous lawsuit.

jibe 4y ago
It should be an easy legal fix - you have to give notice and ~120 day window to fix before you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Also, not sure private parties should be plaintiffs here.
- drc500free 4y ago
  Without private action, they would need funding for enforcement. To have funding for enforcement, they would have to either levy fines against offenders or raise taxes. Those are non-starters for getting the legislation passed, and the opponents hope that they can later claim that the private action is an abuse of the legal system.
tehwebguy 4y ago
That is already the most common out come of ADA website suits it would seem: > The most common penalty at the federal level is a demand that the website be updated swiftly to better cater to people with disabilities. [0] https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-compliant/#What_Do_I_Need_to_Do_to_Make_My_Website_ADA_Compliant https://ddiy.co/can-you-be-sued-if-your-website-is-not-ada-c...
- hedora 4y ago
  That doesn't apply in California or New York. I heard California is trying to bring back the grace period.

knodi123 4y ago

> Doing which, making services unavailable to disabled people or suing those that do? You think these people are champions of the disabled? If a disabled person wanted to see the video, and could not, and asked them for help, that would be one thing. This ain't that. They're fucking vultures, they are in this to make money off of as many people as possible, regardless of the harm they cause. This is no more sane than the Texas law that allows people to be amateur bounty hunters and dogpile on anyone who might have played any kind of role in any woman's abortion.

miki123211 4y ago
If a disabled person asks for anything, they usually get a generic "we care about your feedback, this is on our radar" response and nothing actually happens. I'm speaking from experience here, I've done quite a few accessibility-related support requests, and getting a human to answer is very often a struggle.
tehwebguy 4y ago
I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law: I doubt that simply "finding" a website with a video that lacks captions is enough for a viable suit. From Googling, it appears that suits without actual damages are getting thrown out[0], so I'd guess the attorneys running that show are doing something unlawful but not illegal by filing these suits, or maybe something not even unlawful by simply making legal demands without filing. Probably one of the biggest causes for all of this pain is that so many "white collar" violations of public trust are either a) not actually illegal or b) not handled by any law enforcement. The Prenda Law debacle comes to mind though -- these guys spent years terrorizing people with copyright law before anything really came of it but, incredibly, they actually ended up convicted on fairly serious charges. It's super wild to read about, I wonder if they had dialed it back a tiny bit they would have stayed under the radar completely. [0] This doesn't help the defendants in question with their own attorney's fees but does send a message about viability of these garbage suits to the plaintiffs and every other firm looking into it.

drc500free 4y ago

You'll recognize the same rage that there was against the mcdonald's coffee lady. These cases get stoked by tort-reform interests to show "what's wrong with the legal system." It took several decades and a documentary for people to understand they were misled about that personal injury case, it will take a while for them to understand disability law.

hedora 4y ago
Those cases are completely different from each other. If McDonalds coffee lady was buying coffees everywhere, checking them with a thermometer, suing because she could have burnt herself, and then used the proceeds to hire more people to do the same in a profit sharing scheme then her case would be comparable to the current ADA abusers in California. Instead, the McDonald's in question had been repeatedly warned by health inspectors, was in violation of corporate policy, and the woman was an actual customer that was hospitalized as a result of the business violating the law.
- drc500free 4y ago
  1. Refuse to fund enforcement of disability protections, and require citizens to crowdsource it via a bounty program. 2. Label anyone who tries to enforce it an “ADA abuser” and claim they are misusing the system to make money. 3. Disability protections are successfully ignored, corporations make more profit. Usually there’s a “???” in the middle, but this one is pretty straightforward.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I think this a good summary of why civil suits usually can only be brought by a party that actually suffered some sort of harm. (The ADA works that way in 48 states, avoiding abusive suits.)
    - drc500free 4y ago
      Can you define for me what makes the suit abusive? Is the defendant following the law and being wrongfully sued? Or are they breaking the law but should only be held accountable if a disabled person has the energy, time, and money to go through the court system? It’s sounding like “it’s annoying to serve disabled people, businesses should be able to get away with not doing that.” In my mind we are literally dealing with people who are abusing (ignoring) ADA to make a profit, but you are calling the OTHER side profit-seeking abusers.