[asynchronous13]

If compliance were the goal, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this lawyer is suing first without any notification first that the shop is non-compliant. That's what makes it come across as predatory.

[soganess]

Frome the article:

> These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first.

It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.

[brewdad]

That depends. Is the plaintiff's goal to encourage a business to comply or is it to get paid? If compliance was the goal, sending a letter would always be the first step.

[ViViDboarder]

And compliance does not appear to be the goal, or the outcome, in cases like these where the business folds.

[soganess]

But if a claimant does send a letter and that letter gets ignored, what's their recourse if they can't sue? Send another, more angrily worded letter? That will show the defiant business owner what for! They'd likely have to find someone else to do file suit.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure that article is simplifying things, but using the information given, I would also sue first.

[kube-system]

Doesn't look like a "small technical violation" to me. There's clearly a bunch of stairs in the photo.