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

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

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:

Published on: | by

For small business owners, facing an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit can feel like an uphill battle. These lawsuits often allege accessibility violations, and the costs of litigation can be daunting, even for businesses striving to comply with ADA regulations. However, a recent victory in the case of Orlando Garcia v. Zarco Hotels Inc. (Case No. 21STCV00023), defended by Stuart Tubis, Esq. and Martin Orlick, Esq., provides a roadmap for defendant businesses to not only fight these lawsuits but also recover significant attorneys’ fees when they prevail. It takes the right facts, the right lawyer and a genuine commitment to fight for what is right.

The Case: Orlando Garcia v. Zarco Hotels Inc.

JMBM previously reported a successful defense against an ADA lawsuit brought by plaintiff Orlando Garcia in which Garcia alleged that the Hollywood Hotel’s reservation requirements failed to comply with the ADA because the website did not provide enough information about the physical accessibility features of the hotel. Defendant Zarco Hotels found the claims meritless and committed to defending the case on the merits. Zarco Hotels prevailed, and the Court ordered Garcia to pay Zarco Hotels $57,604.90 on July 11, 2023.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Data is a key resource for artificial intelligence (AI) and technology companies. But with this power comes a critical responsibility: data security. For AI and tech companies, data security isn’t just a matter of ethics — it’s a legal requirement. A single breach can mean hefty fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. Here are some of the key legal requirements shaping this industry and the practical steps to ensure compliance.

Key Data Protection Laws

Governments worldwide have crafted regulations like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to protect personal data as technology advances. Below are the essentials of these laws, organized for quick reference.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

In the world of online retail, strike-through pricing—displaying a higher “original” price crossed out next to a lower “sale” price—is a common marketing tactic to highlight discounts and drive sales. However, when not implemented correctly, this strategy can lead to legal claims from consumer protection law firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, Tauler Smith LLP, and others. This article outlines practical strategies businesses can use to defend against similar lawsuits.

2025-05-14_15-15-15-1024x650
Understanding A Typical Lawsuit

A typical lawsuit or complaint letter centers on the plaintiff’s purchase of a given item advertised at a lower price with a higher strike-through reference price. The plaintiff will claim this reference price was not the “prevailing market price” within the three months prior to the advertisement, nor was the date when it prevailed clearly stated, rendering the discount misleading. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a class of California consumers who purchased products at with inflated reference prices.

Continue ›