It’s not necessarily about how much damages they suffered. Statutory damages also serve as a deterrent and a way of motivating plaintiffs to pursue ADA compliance suits.
In CA’s cast it looks like statutory damages are up to 3x the damages, with a minimum of $4000. That minimum can apply multiple times, as in Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation.
>Plaintiff asserts that, because the minimum statutory amount is $4,000.00 per violation, and she encountered the architectural barriers a minimum of 15 times, she is entitled to damages in the amount of $60,000. Given that defendant does not present any viable evidence to the contrary, plaintiff will be awarded the statutory minimum of $4,000.00 per violation, totaling $60,000.
The question is whether they were being predatory. Visiting 15 times to put a multiplier on statutory damages, which were already 500x the actual damage, is predatory.
$4000 is a nice kick in the pants but there should be a large delay before the same person can get a second instance of statutory payout, if ever.
If businesses only had to pay the actual provable amount of damages caused by non-compliance, few businesses would find it remotely worthwhile to comply. That's why the ADA allows for more.
In CA’s cast it looks like statutory damages are up to 3x the damages, with a minimum of $4000. That minimum can apply multiple times, as in Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation.
>Plaintiff asserts that, because the minimum statutory amount is $4,000.00 per violation, and she encountered the architectural barriers a minimum of 15 times, she is entitled to damages in the amount of $60,000. Given that defendant does not present any viable evidence to the contrary, plaintiff will be awarded the statutory minimum of $4,000.00 per violation, totaling $60,000.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041331408fsupp2d92311235