Seyfarth Synopsis:  Domino’s Likely to File Petition for Certiorari from Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Robles v. Domino’s.

As we reported, the Ninth Circuit held in January that a blind plaintiff could move forward with his ADA Title III lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza for having an allegedly inaccessible website and mobile app.  The court determined that allowing the claim to move forward was not a violation of Domino’s due process rights, even though the ADA and its regulations contain no definition of, or technical specifications for, “accessible” public accommodations websites.

We believe Domino’s will be petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari because on March 6, 2019, it requested a sixty-day extension of time to file said petition.  The request was filed by a newly-engaged Supreme Court specialist which further confirms our conclusion that a petition will be filed.  Justice Kagan granted the request, and Domino’s Petition for Certiorari is due on June 14, 2019.

There is a lot at stake with this petition.  Congress and the DOJ have taken no action to stop the tsunami of lawsuits against thousands of businesses about their allegedly inaccessible websites.  A Supreme Court decision could put an end to the litigation frenzy and provide some relief for businesses.

Stay tuned for updates on this exciting development.

Edited by Kristina M. Launey

As we had predicted, the number of website accessibility lawsuits (i.e. lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs with a disability could not use websites because they were not coded to work with assistive technologies like screen readers, or otherwise accessible to them) filed in federal court under Title III of the ADA exploded in 2018 to at least 2258 – increasing by 177% from 814 such lawsuits in 2017.

Graph: ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2017-2018: 2017: 814; 2018: 2258, 177% increase over 2017. *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs filed these federal ADA Title III lawsuits in fourteen states—New York and Florida being the most busy jurisdictions with 1564 and 576 lawsuits, respectively.  Pennsylvania and Massachusetts held distant third and fourth positions, as shown in the chart below.

[Graph: Top 10 States for ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits in 2018: NY 1564, FL 576, PA 42, MA 26, CA 10, OH 9, VA 8, IL 7, TX 7. *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number of New York federal website accessibility lawsuits is staggering, brought primarily by fifteen law firms/lawyers.  The lawyers appearing most frequently on filings are Joseph Mizrahi, Jonathan Shalom, Doug Lipsky, C.K. Lee, Bradley Marks, and Jeffrey Gottlieb.  We saw a surge in these cases after New York federal judges allowed website accessibility cases to proceed to discovery in lawsuits against Blick Art and Five Guys.  The 2018 New York website accessibility filing statistic brought New York into a close second to California in the total number of ADA Title III lawsuits (not just website accessibility cases) filed in federal court.

The fact that the California federal courts only had ten website accessibility lawsuits filings in 2018 may be a surprise to some since California continues to lead the pack in the number of all ADA Title III lawsuit filings in federal court.  However, it appears that plaintiffs filed their new cases in state court after a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a website accessibility lawsuit against Dominos’ in 2017.  The Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal last month, making California federal court an attractive venue for plaintiffs once again.  We predict that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will cause the number of website accessibility lawsuits in California federal courts to increase dramatically in 2019.

About our methodology:  Our 2018 numbers are based on searches using keywords of data from the Courthouse News Services.  Thus, it is possible that there are some website accessibility cases that were not captured in the searches if their descriptions did not include the keywords.  We then review the thousands of entries manually to remove lawsuits that may be about websites but are not about a website’s accessibility to a user with a disability.  For example, there were a number of lawsuits in 2018 brought by plaintiffs with mobility disabilities alleging that the reservations websites of hotels did not provide adequate information about the accessibility of hotel facilities.  We also removed a number of lawsuits brought against state and local government entities under Title II of the ADA for having inaccessible websites.

The number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2018 hit a record high of 10,163 – up 34% from 2017 when the number was a mere 7,663.  This is by far the highest number of annual filings since we started tracking these numbers in 2013, when the number of federal filings was only 2,722.  In other words, the number of cases has more than tripled.  The chart below shows the explosion in these types of suits:

[Graph: ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2018: 2013: 2722; 2014: 4436, 63% increase over 2013; 2015: 4789, 8% increase over 2014; 2016: 6601, 37% increase over 2015; 2017: 7663, 16% increase over 2016; 2018: 10163, 33% increase over 2017]
California, New York, and Florida led the pack by a wide margin as the states with the most ADA Title III lawsuits, with Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Alabama making the top ten but trailing far behind.  Nevada, Colorado, and Utah fell out of the top ten in 2018, displaced by newcomers Alabama, Arizona, and Massachusetts.  No ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming.

[Graph: Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits in 2018: CA 4249, NY 2338, FL 1941, TX 196, GA 160, PA 129, AZ 94, MA 91, NJ 82, AL 80.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Graph: Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits in 2017: CA 2751, FL 1488, NY 1023, UT 360, NV 276, CO 215, GA 187, PA 182, TX 129, NJ 108.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big news among the top three states is that New York displaced Florida as the second busiest jurisdiction.  Filings in New York more than doubled from 2017 to 2018 (1023 vs. 2338) while the number of cases filed in Florida only increased from 1488 to 1941.  The number of lawsuits filed in California increased by 54% from 2751 in 2017 to 4249 in 2018.  This record-breaking California number does not even include the many state court filings which we do not track.

[Graph: California, New York and Florida ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2018: 2017: CA 2751, 2018: CA 4249, 2017: NY 1023, 2018: NY 2338, 2017: FL 1488, 2018: FL 1941.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is driving the ADA Title III lawsuit explosion?  We are still crunching the numbers but we believe there were nearly 2000 federal lawsuits about allegedly inaccessible websites filed in 2018.  There were very few of these cases before 2015.  In addition, plaintiffs and their attorneys branched out into suits about hotel reservations websites in 2018, further driving the numbers.  We also continue to see many lawsuits about physical access barriers.

A note on our methodology: Our research involved a painstaking manual process of going through all federal cases that were coded as “ADA-Other” and manually culling out the ADA Title II cases in which the defendants are state and local governments.  The manual process means there is the small possibility of human error, but we are confident in our process.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Transportation says that an airline’s provision of an accessible alternative website violates the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), so are such websites an acceptable means of providing access under the ADA?

In response to the onslaught of website accessibility lawsuits against public accommodations covered by Title III of the ADA, some website accessibility consulting companies have been promoting solutions that involve the use of an alternative version of a business’ primary website that conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 AA (WCAG 2.0 AA).  The alternative version is typically accessed through a link on the website and, unlike the bare bones “text-only” websites of the past, looks very much like the non-accessible website. While not cheap, this solution is appealing to many businesses because it requires no coding changes to the primary website, no substantial commitment of internal company resources because it is implemented by the third party consultant, and can be implemented fairly quickly to provide immediate access for users with disabilities.

In a recent consent order against airline SAS, the Department of Transportation (DOT) made clear that these alternative websites do not meet the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”) requirement that all airlines make all web pages on their primary websites accessible by December 12, 2016.  The DOT said SAS violated the ACAA’s website rules when it when it “created a separate Web site for individuals with disabilities instead of ensuring that its primary Web site met the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA standard.”   To avoid an enforcement action, SAS entered into a consent order which requires SAS to pay $100,000 in immediate penalties, and other $100,000 in penalties if it later violates the Consent Order.

The airline had engaged a well-known website accessibility consulting company to create an “assistive version” of its primary website which had a separate url from the airline’s primary website url, and could be accessed from a link on the top right of the primary website homepage.  The airline stated that it had in good faith employed this solution to meet the compliance deadline while it was building a new global primary website that would be (and is now) accessible.  It also argued that it met the undue burden exception to the website rule, which, when met, allows use of an alternate conforming website.  DOT responded that the ACAA permits air carriers to use a WCAG Level AA conforming alternate version only when conforming the primary web page to all WCAG 2.0 AA success criteria would constitute an undue burden or fundamentally alter the information or functionality provided by the primary webpage, and that SAS could not meet either exception.  The DOT cited the ACAA’s explanation for its prohibition on separate accessible websites, as “likely [to] perpetuate the problem of unequal access as carriers allot fewer resources than needed over time to properly maintain the secondary site.”  However, the Consent Order did not state that the alternative website failed to comply with the WCAG 2.0 AA in any way.  The DOT also rejected SAS’s argument that it was only using the alternative website to meet the deadline while its entirely new accessible primary website was under development.  We assume that SAS, like many other businesses, did not want to spend money remediating an old website that would soon be retired.

The DOT Consent Order raises the obvious question of whether an alternative accessible version of an inaccessible website can be used to provide access under Title III of the ADA.  We do not think the DOT Consent Order is dispositive because, unlike the ACAA which explicitly says the primary websites of airline carriers must comply with WCAG 2.0 AA, the ADA does not specify any accessibility standard for public accommodations websites.  In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) which is responsible for enforcing the ADA recently stated in a letter to Congress that “absent the adoption of specific technical requirements for websites through rulemaking, public accommodations have flexibility in how to comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication.”  That said, the Consent Order certainly raises concerns about the use of alternative accessible websites, and public accommodations should carefully examine their options before signing up for this type of solution.

Seyfarth Synopsis: If ADA Title III federal lawsuit numbers continue to be filed at the current pace, 2018’s total will exceed 2017 by 30%, fueled largely by website accessibility lawsuit continued growth.

We have completed our mid-year analysis of the ADA Title III lawsuit numbers and the results are striking.

ADA Title III Lawsuits (All Types)Plaintiffs filed 4965 federal ADA Title III lawsuits in just the first six months of 2018, as compared to 7,663 for all of 2017.  If the filings continue at the same rate, there will be close to 10,000 ADA Title III lawsuits for all of 2018 – a 30% increase over 2017.

[Graph: ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2018: 2013: 2722; 2014: 4436, 63% increase over 2013; 2015: 4789, 8% increase over 2014; 2016: 6601, 37% increase over 2015; 2017: 7663, 16% increase over 2016; 2018: 4965 Federal ADA Title III lawsuits filed through June 2018, 30% Projected Increase over 2017 *Number of projected lawsuits based on current filing rate.]

In addition, for the first six months of 2018, New York (1026 lawsuits) has overtaken Florida (882 lawsuits) for the honor of having the second highest number of ADA Title III lawsuits, with California (2155 lawsuits) retaining its number one position as the most busy jurisdiction for ADA Title III filings.

[Graph: Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits January – June 2018: CA 2155, NY 1026, FL 882, AZ 87, PA 73, TX 68, GA 65, LA 57, MA 49, NJ 48.]
ADA Title III Lawsuits (Website Accessibility).  Plaintiffs filed more website accessibility lawsuits in federal court for the first six months of 2018 than in all of 2017.  There were at least 1053 of such lawsuits in the first six months of 2018, compared to 814 in all of 2017.  If the filings continue at this rate, there could be more than 2000 website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court for 2018.

[Graph: Federal Website Accessibility Lawsuits 2017 v. 2018 (First Six Months): 2017: 814; First Half of 2018: 1053.]
The New York federal courts have the most website accessibility lawsuits (630 lawsuits).  The Florida courts lag behind with only 342 lawsuits, and the remaining 10 states have anywhere from 1 to 24 lawsuits apiece.

[Graph: Federal Website Access Lawsuits January – June 2018: At Least 1053 Lawsuits: Ca 5, FL 342, GA 1, IL 6, MA 21, NY 630, OH 4, OR 5, PA 24, TX 7, VA 7, NC 1.]
Website accessibility lawsuits are only partly responsible for the increase in the overall number of ADA Title III lawsuits.  We continue to see many lawsuits about the accessibility of public accommodations physical facilities.  We have recently seen a number of class action lawsuits about hotel shuttle services and online hotel reservations systems.

Our Methodology:  Our overall ADA Title III lawsuit numbers come from the federal court’s docketing system, PACER.  However, because the area of law code that covers ADA Title III cases also includes ADA Title II cases, our research department reviews the complaints to remove those cases from the count.  Our website accessibility lawsuit data comes from searches using key words in the Courthouse New Service database which we then manually analyze.  Both processes result in lists of cases that we know exist, but there may be a few we have missed. In addition, our review did not include any accessibility cases brought in state courts under state law such as California’s Unruh Act that were not removed to federal court.

By: Kevin Fritz

Seyfarth Synopsis: June 2, 2018 marked the second compliance deadline for movie theatres with auditoriums showing digital movies to comply with the ADA Title III Movie Captioning and Audio Description Rule. 

June 2 marked the arrival of the second of four deadlines under the ADA Title III Movie Captioning and Audio Description Rule, which went into effect on January 17, 2017—45 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The time for compliance with the Rule’s provisions varies depending on the specific requirement or event that triggers compliance.  The Rule’s various compliance deadlines are as follows:

  1. January 17, 2017 — Beginning January 17, 2017, movie theatres which were providing closed captioning and audio description services as of that date must notify the public about the availability of these features, and have staff available to assist movie patrons with the equipment.
  2. June 2, 2018 — Any movie theatre that was showing digital movies (movies in which images and sound captured on computer disk rather than film) on December 2, 2016 and did not at that time have the available equipment necessary to provide accessibility services to movie patrons must, starting June 2, have available and maintain the equipment necessary to provide closed captioning and audio description at a movie patron’s seat.  These movie theatres must also comply with the January 17, 2017 compliance deadline requirements.

Deadlines only applicable to movie theatres converting auditoriums from analog to digital projection systems:

  1. December 2, 2018 — If conversion of the auditorium from analog to digital projection occurred between December 3, 2016 and June 2, 2018, then the theatre has until December 2, 2018 to have available and maintain the necessary equipment for closed captioning and audio description. Once closed captioning and audio description is made available, these movie theatres will also have to comply with the January 17, 2017 compliance deadline requirements.
  2. Within 6 months after the date of conversion — If conversion of the auditorium from analog to digital projection occurs on or after June 3, 2018, then these theatres have six months to have available and maintain the necessary equipment for closed captioning and audio description. Once closed captioning and audio description is made available, these movie theatres will also have to comply with the January 17, 2017 compliance deadline requirements.

What does this mean for movie theatres?  Movie theatres that were showing digital movies on December 2, 2016 should ensure that they have the necessary equipment. Those that have converted – or will convert to digital projection systems – should take note of the future compliance deadlines. While the Rule is intended to enhance the accessibility of movie going in the United States, it will also impose additional costs on the industry in the form of new equipment, employee training, advertising and future litigation, for which theatres should be prepared.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A Missouri federal judge orders a theatre to provide, upon request, captioning services for the deaf for all theatrical performances.

A federal judge in Missouri recently ordered a 4500-seat indoor theatre to provide open or closed captioning for all theatrical performances upon request with two weeks’ notice, in a lawsuit brought by deaf patrons and advocacy organizations.

The Fabulous Fox Theatre in St. Louis, Missouri initially offered no captioning services of any kind for its theatre productions. After the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, the theater agreed to provide captioning on a handheld device for one prescheduled Broadway-style performance per production (usually on a Saturday matinee), if it receives a request for captioning two weeks before the show. The theatre provided stands for the devices only at designated accessible seats because the fire marshal considered them to be a fire hazard. The plaintiffs maintained that captioning should be available for all shows, and that the theatre should provide stands for the handheld devices at all seats, not just accessible seats. They also sought an injunction requiring the theatre to (a) publicize the availability of captioning; (b) provide a means to request captioning; and (c) provide a method for people to purchase tickets by non-telephonic means, including e-mail.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs on every issue but one. The judge held that providing captioning for only one show per Broadway-style production denied plaintiffs the equal opportunity to participate in the theatre’s performances because it limited their ability to choose from a number of different performances that were available to non-disabled patrons. The court also found that the theatre had failed to meet its obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with the plaintiff. The theatre did not attempt to argue that providing captioning for all performances upon request would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration of its performances. Accordingly, the court ordered the theatre to provide captioning for all theatrical performances upon request with two weeks’ notice. The court also – with no discussion – ordered the theatre to publicize the availability of captioning, provide a means to request captioning, and provide a method of buying tickets through non-telephonic means, including e-mail. The court did not require the theatre to provide stands for the captioning devices at non-accessible seats, due to fire safety concerns.

The decision serves as a reminder that Title III of the ADA requires public accommodations to provide auxiliary aids and services to individuals with disabilities to ensure effective communication with them, unless doing so imposes an undue burden or fundamentally alters the nature of the goods and services provided. Organizers of events that are open to the public should keep this in mind and have a plan for ensuring effective communication for participants and spectators with different types of disabilities, as there have been a number of lawsuits filed in the past several years over the lack of captioning for live events.

Edited by Kristina Launey.

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis:  HR 620 requires potential plaintiffs to provide businesses with notice of architectural barriers and give them an opportunity to remove them before filing suit. 

Today, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act (HR 620) by a vote of 225 to 192, with 12 Democrats voting for the bill.  As we recently reported , the number of ADA Title III lawsuits has risen dramatically in the past four years.  HR 620 is primarily an attempt to stem the tide of lawsuits brought by serial plaintiffs who bring dozens, if not hundreds, of lawsuits against businesses based on relatively minor physical access barriers found in their facilities for quick settlements.

HR 620 requires a would-be plaintiff to send the business a pre-suit notice that specifies (1) the alleged barriers in the facility, with a citation of the section of the ADA that has been violated; (2) “the circumstances under which the individual was actually denied access to a public accommodation;” and (3) whether a “request for assistance in removing the barrier was made.”  A lawsuit can only be filed after sending this notice if the business does not respond within 60 days with a description of the improvements that it will make to remove the barrier.  If the business responds as required, but fails to remove the barrier or make “substantial progress” toward removing the barrier within 120 days, a lawsuit can be filed.  HR 620 also requires the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a program to educate state and local governments and property owners about the ADA’s requirements, and directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to develop a model program to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (including a stay of discovery during mediation – similar in concept to what some courts already require by local rule, such as in the Northern District of California) to facilitate early resolution rather than litigation  of ADA claims based on alleged architectural barriers.

Supporters of the bill say that — because there are so many technical requirements that businesses can violate unknowingly (e.g., the toilet paper roll is half an inch too far away from the toilet, or the mirror is 1” too high) — providing businesses with notice and an opportunity to remove barriers is a good thing and does exactly what the law was designed to do — make businesses accessible.  Opponents say that the amendment will cause businesses to sit back and take no action to comply with the law until they receive a notice.  In addition, they claim that attorneys will be reluctant to take on these cases because there is no chance to receive a fee award by a court if a business does in fact remove the barriers identified in the notice.

Whether HR 620 (or some form of it) will ever become law remains to be seen, as the Senate has taken little action on this issue.  That said, HR 620 is the most significant development thus far in the effort to deter serial ADA lawsuit filers and may provide some momentum for legislative reform.

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Kristina M. Launey, Minh N. Vu, & Susan Ryan

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The number of federal ADA Title III lawsuits continue to surge in 2017, fueled largely by website accessibility claims; while legislative reform efforts continue to mitigate the physical accessibility portion of those lawsuit numbers.

The results of our 2017 ADA Title III lawsuit count are in, putting a fifth consecutive year (since we began tracking in 2013) of growth in the number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court.  In 2017, 7,663 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court — 1,062 more than in 2016. While a bit slower growth than in 2016 (which saw an 1,812, or 37% year over year increase) over 2015, this 16% increase is almost double the 2014-2015 8% increase, demonstrating a continued upward trend in the number of filings.

ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2017: 2013 (2722); 2014 (4436, 63% increase over 2013); 2015 (4789, 8% increase over 2014); 2016 (6601, 37% increase over 2015); 2017 (7663, 16% increase over 2016)

California and Florida continue to be hotbeds of litigation, with 2,751 and 1,488 lawsuits (up from 2,468 in CA in 2016 and down from 1,663 in FL) respectively. New York is the big story, having almost doubled its 543 lawsuits filed in 2016 to 1023 in 2017.  Utah moved up in the ranks, with a more than doubling of federal lawsuit filings, from 124 to 360. Nevada, not in the top 10 states for filings in 2016, is relatively close behind with 276 lawsuits, while the 2016 holder of the fifth spot, Texas, dropped to number nine, cutting its 267 2016 number down by more than half, to 129.  Arizona, with 335 lawsuit filings in 2016, dropped out of the top 10 in 2017.  Colorado’s numbers also more than doubled, from 92 in 2016 to 215 in 2017; and New Jersey newly entered the top 10 this year with 108 lawsuits.  Georgia, held its sixth spot on the chart, also holding fairly steady at 187 lawsuits, a slight decrease from the 193 filed in 2016.  Finally, Pennsylvania showed relatively modest growth, increasing by 80 lawsuits over its 102 2016 count.  Here are the numbers for the top ten states:

  1. CA: 2751
  2. FL: 1488
  3. NY: 1023
  4. UT: 360
  5. NV: 276
  6. CO: 215
  7. GA: 187
  8. PA: 182
  9. TX: 129
  10. NJ: 108
Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits in 2016: CA (2751); FL (1488); NY (1023); UT (360); NV (276); CO (215); GA (187); PA (182); TX (129); NJ (108)

Similar to last year, while physical accessibility lawsuits remain common, these numbers continue to be driven largely by the vast numbers of website accessibility lawsuit filings, many by new attorneys in familiar (CA, FL, NY) jurisdictions.  The extreme increase in New York is likely due at least in part to 2017 federal court decisions that have likely embolded plaintiffs’ attorneys in that jurisdiction.  Note that these numbers of course do not include the many demand letters plaintiffs sent to businesses asserting website accessibility claims, do not include lawsuits filed only in state courts, and are conservative estimates, as our research methods are sound in finding at least the numbers we report here, and it is entirely likely we have not captured every ADA Title III filed in federal court.

Meanwhile, Congress has continued legislative efforts to provide business some relief from “drive-by” physical accessibility lawsuits.  The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, introduced January 24, 2017 as H.R. 620 by Texas Representative Ted Poe, would, among other things, codify a “notice and cure period” that would prohibit a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit based on failure to remove an architectural barrier unless the plaintiff has first given the businesses notice of the alleged violations and an opportunity to provide a plan to address them.  On October 30, 2017, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported the bill, and it is scheduled for referral to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice on February 8, 2017.  Some states also continued their own legislative reform efforts, such as Florida HB 727, effective July 1, 2017; and in Nevada the State Attorney General intervened in a federal ADA Title III lawsuit by a serial plaintiff who had filed at least 275 lawsuits seven months.

We will, as always, continue to keep tracking lawsuit filings, legislative efforts, and other breaking developments and keep you up to date — as the Title III trend shows no signs of cooling down in 2018.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Florida’s recently-enacted House Bill 727 gives businesses a way to deter serial plaintiffs from suing them in Florida courts.

Watching businesses deal with the at least 1,663 ADA Title III access suits filed in federal court in Florida in 2016 motivated Florida legislators to take action with House Bill 727 (“HB 727”) which went into effect on July 1, 2017. One of bill’s sponsors, Rep. Tom Leek, claims that “[t]his law give the ADA back to the people for whom it was written, Americans with disabilities.” We are not quite so optimistic.

Under HB 727, a business that hires a “qualified expert” to inspect its premises to either verify conformity with ADA facilities access requirements, or to develop a compliance plan, can have that information considered in a lawsuit filed in a court within the state of Florida, provided that the certificate of conformity or remediation plan has been filed with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the “DBPR”). The court “must consider” any such remediation plan or certificate of conformity “and determine[s] if the plaintiff’s complaint was filed in good faith and if the plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs.”

Here’s how it would work: An owner of a place of public accommodation pays a “qualified expert” to inspect its premises. If the expert concludes that the facility complies with the ADA, the business can submit a “certificate of conformity” to the DBPR stating that the premises conforms to Title III.  Certificates of conformity are valid for three years and must include: the date that the premises was inspected, the name of the “qualified expert,” proof of the expert’s qualifications, and a statement from the qualified expert attesting that the information contained in the certificate is complete and accurate.

Businesses whose facilities do not fully comply with the ADA can submit a remediation plan to the DBPR indicating that the facility intends to conform with ADA requirements within a reasonable amount of time that does not exceed 10 years. In addition to the requirements applicable to the certificate of conformity, the remediation plan must include the specific remedial measures that the place of public accommodation will undertake, and the anticipated date of completion.

To be a “qualified expert,” one must be a building code inspector, architect, engineer, contractor, or “person who has prepared a remediation plan related to a claim under Title III … that has been accepted by a federal court in a settlement agreement or court proceeding, or who has been qualified as an expert in Title III … by a federal court.” This means that an experienced defense attorney who has prepared a remediation plan for a court approved settlement could be considered a “qualified expert.”

HB 727 is not likely to have much impact on the number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in Florida for several reasons. First, the law will likely only apply to ADA lawsuits filed in state court, and most ADA Title III lawsuits are filed in federal court. This is because under the Supremacy Clause of the United States constitution, Florida state’s requirement that a court must consider remediation plans and certifications of conformity are likely preempted by the ADA and will not be applied to a plaintiff’s federal lawsuit. Second, given that HB 727 does not explicitly render an access lawsuit moot just because there is a remediation plan or certificate of conformity on file, businesses will be reluctant to publicize access barriers in their facilities in a publicly-filed document, which plaintiffs can still use to sue them. Third, having a court consider the existence of a remediation plan or certificate of conformity in deciding whether to award a plaintiff attorneys’ fees is not likely to deter plaintiffs who know that defendant businesses will need to spend a lot of money litigating before a court ever considers either of these documents.  Fourth, HB 727 does nothing to address the explosion of website access litigation under the ADA in Florida which has been a key driver in the increased number of lawsuits in the past 12 months. Indeed, as we have previously reported (here and here), California has similar legislation to HB 727, yet California still had approximately 2,468 ADA Title III filings in federal court in 2016 and continues, along with Florida, to be a hotbed for ADA Title III litigation.