By Carl I. S. Mueller, Esq., The Maloney Firm, APC

Over the last several weeks, the “Center for Disability Access,” a division of the well-known San Diego based law firm Potter Handy, has filed several law suits in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Federal District Courts on behalf of an individual named Chris Langer. Common to each lawsuit are the following facts: (1) Mr. Langer is allegedly suffering from Delayed Endolymphatic Hydrops, which causes permanent partial hearing loss; (2) Mr. Langer attempted to watch videos on the websites of the various defendants, all consumer-facing businesses with brick-and-mortar locations; and (3) the lack of subtitles or closed captioning for the videos on the websites utilized by Mr. Langer created a barrier to Mr. Langer’s use of the website. 

.

Each of the lawsuits assert the following causes of action:

• (1) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, specifically 42 USC § 12181 (the “ADA”), and
• (2) violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, specifically Cal. Civil Code § 51-53 (the “Unruh Act”).

.

These lawsuits represent several noteworthy developments in the world of ADA litigation. First, while ADA website liability cases are generally increasing, filing cases against consumer-facing companies for failing to place subtitles or closed captioning on internet videos remains uncommon.

. 

Second, Potter Handy and the Center for Disability Access had previously been focusing almost exclusively on ADA and Unruh Act violations relating to physical and architectural barriers to use. Indeed, Mr. Langer himself was and is a plaintiff in dozens of lawsuits filed by Potter Handy and the Center for Disability Access relating to his use of a wheel chair. As a result of Potter Handy and the Center for Disability Access beginning to file website accessibility cases, and as a testament to the volumes of cases Potter Handy is capable of filing, it is likely that ADA and Unruh Act website violation case filings will begin to increase substantially.

.

Third, Mr. Langer has filed these cases in both Federal and State courts at a time when the Los Angeles Superior Court is experiencing significant slowdowns as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. After filing most of their previous ADA cases in Federal Court, this strategic shift by Potter Handy presents new challenges to defendants who wish to resolve these cases quickly. Right now, jury trial dates in civil cases—and the related discovery cutoffs—are a desert mirage, and there is no clear prognosis for when those trials will resume in the Los Angeles Superior Courts. As such, the attorneys’ fees provision in the Unruh Act can create a perverse incentive for plaintiffs to drive litigation and related fees beyond what is normally expected.

.

What does this mean for business owners in California? With Potter Handy beginning to file ADA website accessibility cases, the volume of websites that will be scrutinized for potential lawsuits is sure to drastically increase. As such, it is more important than ever for business owners to review their websites to ensure compliance with the latest Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”), as previously discussed here. Additionally, if a business owner receives a demand letter, settling early and avoiding litigation entirely is the best way to limit costs, as litigation in the Los Angeles Superior Court may become more expensive and drawn out than cases in the Federal District Court. As always, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and may just increase your website’s audience as well!

.

About the Author:

.

Carl Mueller is a business litigation attorney that represents clients in all phases of civil litigation. Mr. Mueller’s practice has a focus on attorney-client disputes of all kinds. If you have questions regarding this article contact Carl Mueller at cmueller@maloneyfirm.com.

< See all News / Events