Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WalterBright 1549 days ago
I read years ago that there was a minor industry of lawyers looking at satellite photos to find motels with a swimming pool, and then suing them for the pool not being ADA compliant.

The usual result was the pool got filled in, as it was too expensive to upgrade it.

Who came out ahead? Nobody but the lawyers.
3 comments
UncleMeat 1549 days ago
"Actually helping people is bad" is an extremely attractive narrative that sticks very effectively. It is regularly used to resist all manner of useful systems from welfare to charitable giving to accessibility.

"I read years ago that _nonspecific_thing_" should be a red flag for making broad judgements about the merits of accessibility. One story about "welfare queens" poisoned millions of people against anti-poverty measures for generations.

link
WalterBright 1549 days ago
> should be a red flag

I'm sorry I don't have a photographic memory. But hey, a simple google search comes up with:

"In California, serial plaintiffs and their lawyers have found these cookie-cutter lawsuits to be lucrative as plaintiffs can claim statutory damages, compensatory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees."

https://hotellaw.jmbm.com/ada_defense_lawyer_pool_lift_l.htm...

link
aww_dang 1549 days ago
Think of how much easier this process will be with websites. Just crawl and email legal threats. Lawyers will get paid again. Some tech people might even go along for the ride.
link
pmontra 1549 days ago
Who did pay those lawyers?
link
WalterBright 1549 days ago
The lawyers settled with the motels for $$$.
link
glaucon 1549 days ago
I do not live in the USA so I'm woefully ignorant of US legal matters but how does a lawyer, having identified a breach of a federal law, then get a payment from the miscreant ? I mean the only way that comes to mind is to write to the offender saying "You're breaking the law but if you send me a cheque I won't tell anyone". For a lawyer in particular that doesn't strike me as a sustainable business activity !

So there's obviously something I'm missing here ... would you care to explain ?

link
dghlsakjg 1549 days ago
The lawyer needs to find a person that has suffered as a result in order for the suit to be valid. So they team up with someone who is unable to use the facility as a result of it not being compliant. They sue, and split the money. Often, all that is needed is for the lawyer to demand compensation since it is far easier and cheaper to just offer them a few thousand dollars to settle than it is to hire a lawyer and figure it out in court.

The ADA is interesting because, to my understanding, the law asks for ‘reasonable’ accommodation without defining what that is. So it leaves it to the courts to decide. It is reasonable that new building should be completely wheelchair accessible. But is it reasonable for architecturally or historically significant sites to be modified for wheelchair accessibility? That’s where the lawyers come in.

link
Akronymus 1549 days ago
Punitive damages, I'd think. "you weren't compliant now you have to pay x. Because lawyer y brought the suit, that lawyer gets the money"
link