Menu

The Supreme Court Declines To Make A Finding Regarding Standing For ADA Testers

Plaintiff lawyers and testers have created a cottage industry of lawsuits filed against unsuspecting business owners concerning website accessibility claims under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Title III. These cases have burdened small businesses and have taken away time and precious judicial resources from courts that could have been used to address the injustices of individuals who have incurred actual injuries.

These cases target businesses that provide services to individuals in places of public accommodation that fail to provide adequate information about their accessibility for disabled individuals on their website in violation of Title III. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the propriety of “tester” standing (the ability to file a lawsuit) which would provide businesses with some guidance on who would be able to sue for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it agreed to hear Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. S. Ct. (2023).

The plaintiff Deborah Laufer filed a lawsuit claiming she had a disability and according to her complaint is a self-proclaimed “tester” of ADA Title III violations. She routinely searched the internet to find hotels that failed to provide adequate information about their accessibility for disabled individuals on their websites in compliance with the Department of Justice’s Reservation Rule.

When an alleged violation was found by Ms. Laufer, she (through her attorney) would sue the hotels in federal courts around the country. The cases would often settle for thousands of dollars to offset the potential of businesses having to pay exorbitant legal fees to defend the cases through discovery and potential trial. Prior to Ms. Laufer’s case reaching the Supreme Court, Ms. Laufer had filed more than 600 lawsuits, many of which settled early in litigation. Acheson Hotels however decided to litigate the matter in order to have the court determine whether Ms. Laufer could sue for the alleged Title III violations because she didn’t intend to visit the hotel.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Laufer’s lawsuit, finding she didn’t have standing to sue Acheson because she had no plans to visit the hotel and therefore suffered no injury as a result of its website lacking satisfactory accessibility information. The federal appeals court reversed, finding that her lack of intent to visit the hotel didn’t prevent her from suing for the alleged violations.

After the Supreme Court opted to hear the case to determine the issue of whether an ADA “tester” has standing to challenge a hotel’s alleged Title III violations, Ms. Laufer dismissed her case with prejudice (meaning she withdrew her claims pending before the Court) including the claims she had pending against Acheson Hotels because her attorney was sanctioned before one of the lower courts. Following her withdrawal of the claims, Ms. Laufer also filed a suggestion of mootness (meaning the case had no relevance as the claims were withdrawn).

As a result, the majority chose not to address the main issue in the case which was whether Ms. Laufer had standing to sue for the Title III violations, and instead sent the case back to the federal appeals court, directing that it should be dismissed as moot.

Justice Clarence Thomas, however, drafted a concurrence that addressed the standing question and ultimately concluded that Ms. Laufer lacked standing to sue for the alleged violations because “her claim did not assert a violation of a right under the ADA, much less a violation of her rights.” Essentially, Justice Thomas held that among other factors, Ms. Laufer did not have standing when she sought to pursue the rights of other disabled individuals and not her own.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion addressing the Court’s use of a certain procedural mechanism to vacate the 1st Circuit’s decision.

The opinions of Justice Thomas and Justice Brown although not binding may serve to influence lower appellate and district courts to narrow the scope of who may bring lawsuits for alleged violations of Title III of the ADA.

Conclusion

The surge of Title III lawsuits show no sign of slowing down. The lesson here is that entities that qualify as places of public accommodation under the ADA should take caution and ensure they are complying with Title III’s requirements.

My office is available to assist in defending your business if it is being sued for Title III violations and can also assist with remediation efforts to safeguard against future lawsuits. You can also subscribe to this blog to receive email alerts when new posts go up.

Tags: #ada