Published on: | by

Few states present greater ADA litigation risk to medical practices than California. In recent years, plaintiffs and ADA rights advocates have increasingly targeted medical facilities across the state, often filing high-volume lawsuits based on technical accessibility violations. Many practice owners are caught off guard, believing they are either compliant or too small to attract attention. In California, neither assumption is safe.

California is unique because ADA claims are almost always paired with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages—typically $4,000 per offense, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. This financial incentive has made California a hotspot for lawsuits against healthcare-related businesses of every size.

These claims are not limited to hospitals or large clinics. Targeted practices include physicians’ offices, internal and family medicine practices, dentists and orthodontists, oral surgeons, veterinarians and animal hospitals, physical therapy and chiropractic offices, mental health providers, psychologists and psychiatrists, urgent care centers, imaging and radiology facilities, dialysis centers, podiatrists, optometrists and ophthalmologists, audiologists, outpatient rehabilitation centers, fertility clinics, pain management practices, ambulatory surgery centers, addiction treatment facilities, medical spas and aesthetic salons, cosmetic and plastic surgery offices, acupuncture clinics, and specialty outpatient providers.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Federal and state enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to evolve, creating significant compliance and litigation risk for public entities under Title II and businesses under Title III. While much of the attention around ADA compliance focuses on private lawsuits, government enforcement—particularly by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD)—remains a powerful and often underestimated source of exposure.

The ADA Framework: Title II vs. Title III

The ADA is a federal civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Two titles are most relevant to government enforcement actions.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

If you own a business with a customer-facing website, you are likely already familiar with the wave of litigation surrounding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. But a new legal action is rising throughout California courts, and it targets a technology you probably use every day: standard website analytics and marketing software.

Business owners are receiving a new kind of complaint or demand letter—often sent via Federal Express—accusing them of deploying “illegal spyware” or pixel technology that violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

These letters, frequently from firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, don’t just allege that the business’ website is eavesdropping on chats; they claim the website is functioning as an illegal “trap and trace” device merely by collecting IP addresses or other data.

Continue ›
by
Posted in: News
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Public entities, from state and local governments to special districts like water or fire departments, rely on PDFs to convey information and communicate with the public. But inaccessible PDFs can exclude individuals with disabilities, risking noncompliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). With new accessibility rules in effect, the clock is ticking—larger entities face an April 24, 2026, deadline, while smaller ones and special districts have until April 26, 2027.

Below we discuss the legal requirements and highlight possible solutions to ensure compliance, including Streamline’s new DocAccess tool.

The Legal Landscape: Title II and Subpart H Requirements

Continue ›

Published on: | by

For businesses relying on email marketing, California’s regulatory environment is fraught with pitfalls. Unsolicited commercial emails, or spam, have been a focus of state enforcement for years, but a recent uptick in demand letters from firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys is escalating the risks. These pre-litigation notices, often penned by Scott J. Ferrell, Esq., allege violations of Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 through deceptive headers, subject lines, and domain uses. With strict liability and liquidated damages up to $1,000 per email—no intent or actual harm required—even modest campaigns can lead to multimillion-dollar exposure. If your business has received a Pacific Trial Attorneys anti-spam demand letter, prompt action is essential to resolve the claims before they are filed as a class lawsuit.

California’s Anti-Spam Law: A Strict Framework for Email Compliance

Enacted to curb deceptive online advertising, Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 prohibits unsolicited commercial emails containing false or misleading information, particularly those sent from or to people in California. Unlike the federal CAN-SPAM Act (which emphasizes opt-outs and is mostly enforced by agencies), California’s law grants private rights of action, enabling class action lawsuits with hefty penalties. Practices that create legal risk include:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

It turns out crystal balls aren’t quite what they used to be. While they may be able to see into your future, they have not been able to see the rash of Americans with Disabilities (ADA) lawsuits filed against their businesses. Recently, we’ve seen an increase in ADA lawsuits targeting psychics and fortune tellers filed by So Cal Equal Access of Los Angeles. The claims follow a similar pattern: lack of accessible parking, improperly dimensioned restrooms, inaccessible paths of travel to the building entrances, missing signage, or websites incompatible with screen readers. While these ADA violations are generally easy to fix, if given advance warning, the first notification is when a process server shows up at the front door, but then, it’s too late. For small, cash-based businesses like psychics and fortune tellers, these lawsuits can permanently close doors.

The reality is, whether you can predict lawsuits or not, ADA compliance has been the law since at least 1991. The worst thing to do is ignore ADA compliance.

Building owners who lease to psychics and the businesses operators are equally liable to the plaintiff and both are frequently named in the same lawsuit. Whether you are the landlord or the tenant, here are a few things you may want to consider to provide better service to customers and to avoid litigation:

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Los Angeles remains a focal point for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuits, with claims targeting both physical barriers and digital inaccessibility of websites and mobile apps. California sees the highest number of ADA lawsuits filed each year compared to other states. The greater Los Angeles area in particular sees a very high number of the state’s filings, driven by serial plaintiffs and firms seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and attorneys’ fees under Unruh and the ADA.

Core Legal Framework: ADA Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189) prohibits discrimination in “places of public accommodation,” defined broadly to include hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and other common businesses offering goods or services to the public. Even older properties must at least remove architectural barriers when “readily achievable” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)), i.e., without undue difficulty or expense relative to the benefit. Newer construction and renovations bring a higher standard of compliance. It is a common misconception to believe the older properties are grandfathered in and do not need to comply with the ADA. Violations lead to injunctive relief (court orders to update the property) and attorney fees for the plaintiff under the ADA. Courts apply a nexus test in California: purely online businesses with no nexus to physical retail locations are not subject to the ADA (Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (2022)). However, other jurisdictions hold otherwise, so a purely online business could be sued and held liable in certain other states.

Continue ›

Published on: | by , and

If you own a business in California, chances are you’ve heard about serial ADA litigants. This isn’t a coincidence. California is widely considered ground zero for serial ADA litigation. But why here? And what can you do to protect your business?

California’s Laws Make ADA Lawsuits More Attractive to Plaintiffs

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows for injunctive relief, which means a court can order you to fix violations, but does not award plaintiffs damages. California law changes that. Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act, plaintiffs can recover statutory damages of $4,000 per violation, per visit, plus attorney’s fees. California also does not have a blanket pre-suit notice requirement. Lawsuits can be and frequently are filed immediately, with no warning.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is designed to ensure equal access and opportunity for people with disabilities, but for many business owners ADA compliance can be a legal minefield. Even well-intentioned companies can face costly lawsuits for alleged violations, often over small oversights that could have been addressed proactively.

If you own or operate a business, understanding your ADA obligations is not just about avoiding fines and litigation—it’s about protecting your reputation, and welcoming every customer. Here’s what you need to know.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

Continue ›

Published on: | by

California’s strike-through pricing and false advertising laws aim to protect consumers from misleading discount claims. Law firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, Tauler Smith LLP, Dovel & Luner LLP, and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. have filed these types of consumer rights cases against businesses in California.

A key component of these laws is the concept of the “prevailing market price,” which determines the legality of advertised former prices. This article explores what constitutes the “prevailing market price” under California law, drawing on the significant court case People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.) (2019), and provides clarity for retailers navigating these regulations.

Legal Framework: California Business and Professions Code § 17501

Continue ›
by
Posted in: ADAAG
Published on:
Updated: