ADA Compliance and Defense Blog
Napa Valley and other Northern California hospitality industry companies should be prepared for a new type of ADA inquiry: pre-visit requests for detailed information about accessible features. These include reservation systems, guest services, dining areas, tasting rooms, tours, parking, accessible routes, and related accessibility disclosures. These inquiries arrive before the guest ever visits the property—a pattern consistent with the broader trend of “tester” litigation under the ADA.
One advocate receiving increasing attention among Northern California hotels, hospitality destinations, resorts, restaurants, and wineries is Jose Arocho, a self-described California-based ADA field investigator, ADA tester, and Prop 65/BPS consumer-safety investigator. His website, www.josearocho.com, identifies the investigations he is conducting involving some of the area’s most celebrated businesses, and reflects a focus on high-profile companies. Through his website, Arocho shares investigations, accessibility research, legal theories, and educational materials intended to help individuals identify and pursue accessibility-related claims.
Arocho sends what appear to be form inquiry letters to venues that he says he intends to visit, requesting detailed information about the accessible features of those properties. The letters reference intended visits for leisure travel and to perform ADA inspections and Prop 65 testing. This approach is noteworthy because it extends beyond the familiar ADA, Unruh Civil Rights Act, or Prop 65 demand letter. His public-facing investigations appear designed not only to document alleged accessibility issues, but also to educate potential plaintiffs about how accessibility claims can be identified, investigated, and pursued. He holds himself out as an independent expert. However, in subsequent communications, Arocho’s personal demands for money and remedial barrier removal emerge. More on the specifics of these demands to follow next week.
Concerns for Hospitality Companies
First, many Napa Valley and other Northern California hospitality properties and wineries operate in unique environments that naturally create accessibility challenges. Lodge-style campuses, vineyard properties, tasting rooms, restaurants, production facilities, and tour routes often involve elevation changes and complex accessible-route issues.
Second, these requests focus not only on physical barriers, but also on accessibility information. Under the ADA’s “Reservation Rule,” hotels must provide accessibility information in connection with reservations. Inaccurate website descriptions, incomplete accessibility disclosures, or inconsistent staff responses can become evidence in litigation.
Third, public investigations create reputational risks. When alleged accessibility deficiencies are published online, the resulting exposure may generate additional scrutiny from advocates, attorneys, regulators, and potential guests.
Most importantly, businesses should avoid two common mistakes after receiving one of these requests: ignoring it or responding without legal guidance. Both can significantly increase risk.
An experienced ADA defense attorney can often provide immediate value by conducting a privileged accessibility assessment, evaluating alleged violations, performing website compliance audits, preserving defenses, coordinating with accessibility experts (including Certified Access Specialists, or CASps, in California), and determining whether challenged features are compliant. In many situations, early intervention allows businesses to correct issues, improve accessibility information and the guest experience, and reduce exposure.
For hotels, lodges, wineries, and restaurants, a comprehensive ADA compliance strategy should include far more than a one-time inspection. It should encompass periodic reviews of accessible facilities, reservation systems, guest communications, employee training, accessibility policies, maintenance procedures, and website conformance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA or the newer WCAG 2.2 Level AA Success Criteria.
What to Do If Your Business Receives One of These Requests
- Do not ignore the request. Non-response can increase risk and allow issues to escalate before the business has assessed them.
- Do not send an informal operational response without legal review. Inaccurate website descriptions, incomplete accessibility disclosures, or inconsistent staff responses can become evidence in litigation.
- Route the request promptly to ADA counsel to help evaluate the issues, preserve defenses, coordinate with any needed experts, and determine whether the claims are supportable.
- Review both physical and digital accessibility, including facilities, reservation systems, guest communications, policies, maintenance procedures, and website conformance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1 Level AA or the newer WCAG 2.2 Level AA Success Criteria).
- Treat the issue as a guest-experience and reputation matter, not only a litigation matter, because public investigations can generate additional scrutiny from advocates, attorneys, regulators, and potential guests.
Takeaways:
Businesses should treat these requests as an early warning opportunity, not merely as a nuisance. Properties that assess accessibility, correct issues, update public-facing accessibility information, and coordinate responses through experienced ADA counsel before litigation is filed are better positioned to reduce risk and costs, strengthen defenses, improve guest experiences, and protect their operations and reputations. A comprehensive ADA compliance strategy should include far more than a one-time inspection. It should encompass periodic reviews of accessible facilities, reservation systems, guest communications, employee training, accessibility policies, maintenance procedures, and website conformance with WCAG.
ADA enforcement by advocates, the DOJ, and state agencies is evolving and expanding into new areas. California businesses face exposure not only under the federal ADA but also under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages of at least $4,000 per violation in addition to attorneys’ fees. Advocates are increasingly sophisticated, investigations are becoming more public, and accessibility information is more widely shared than ever before. Business and property owners who wait until litigation is filed may find themselves reacting to problems rather than managing them.
Note on ADA “tester” litigation: Courts have grappled with questions about whether individuals who test businesses for ADA compliance without intending to patronize them have standing to sue. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer to address this question, but the case was dismissed as moot before a ruling on the merits. For now, serial litigants and testers remain active, and businesses should assume that pre-visit inquiries may be precursors to formal legal claims.
About the JMM ADA Compliance and Defense Group
JMM’s ADA Compliance and Defense team, led by Marty Orlick, Stu Tubis, and Chris Whang, advises businesses on practical strategies for meeting architectural and digital accessibility standards, defending litigation, and managing risk. We also collaborate with trusted Certified Access Specialists (CASps) in California, ADA compliance experts nationally, and accessibility-focused web developers to support compliance efforts.
For more information, contact Marty Orlick at morlick@jeffer.com or (415) 984-9667.