https://ballotpedia.org/Acheson_Hotels,_LLC_v._Laufer
Background
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is a case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court was asked to determine whether someone has standing if they do not intend to visit the hotel they are suing.
Under the ADA, hotel reservation portals must provide accessibility information about their accommodations to individuals with disabilities.
Deborah Laufer, the respondent, is disabled. On her own accord and with no intention to visit, she reviewed Acheson Hotels’ website. Laufer sued the hotel, alleging that their website did not provide sufficient information to determine whether her disabilities could be accommodated at the hotel. In an effort to advocate for individuals with disabilities, Laufer has brought over 600 lawsuits against hotels, including Acheson Hotels, under the ADA.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Laufer had standing to sue in federal court and had standing to pursue injunctive relief.
Acheson Hotels asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the First Circuit’s decision. They argued that Laufer does not have standing because she had no intention of visiting the hotel.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ65 | |
| 2 | Ṁ27 | |
| 3 | Ṁ26 | |
| 4 | Ṁ10 | |
| 5 | Ṁ1 |
Can resolve NO—the Court vacated and remanded the lower court opinion and declined to find that Laufer had standing.
@CodeandSolder The opinion has been out for two days—is there a reason you haven’t yet resolved?
@d__ I did not see the tag, the notification system is bad, feel free to ping me on Discord in the future
@jacksonpolack I see both sides, it is an annoying grift but the company was in violation and (assuming we agree with the regulations) it's better that way than to harm somebody unwilling first, possibly multiple such people if they don't report
Some way for them to do it closer to labor costs in verification, like an option to register as a tester and collect significantly reduced fines without lawsuits would probably be a decent middle ground
hm, I think the thing that matters is whether the fine is proportionate to the offense.
If the illegal activity was something that had a serious risk of causing physical harm to someone, for instance, these "testers" would be actively benficial - taking action before anyone was actually harmed.
But apparently, what happened was (this was one of her 600 suits)
nder the Americans with Disabilities Act, hotels are required to make information about their accessibility to people with disabilities available on reservation portals. In this case, Laufer – who has physical disabilities and vision impairments – went to federal court in Maine, where she alleged that a website for an inn that Acheson Hotels operates in that state did not contain enough information about the inn’s accommodations for people with disabilities.
Website didn't have enough information? Really? That does make it sound like a grift.
One might argue that, despite that, the law still is the law, and if it's bad it's up to the legislature to change it. As I mentioned in original comment, that's plausible, idk about that. Maybe implicit in the design of the law was that a lack-of-accomodations that doesn't really hurt anyone is 'fine', so that businesses only have to spend extra on accomodation if they need to. Dunno
@jacksonpolack yeah, that doesn't sound like it takes more than 10min, let them collect a $50 fine and everybody is reasonalby happy.
If you're doing research for those anyway would you mind writing which direction is "affirm" so people can trade easier?
Sure, but I'm just betting on these for fun, I wouldn't bet at 99.9% on getting 'which side is affirm' right every time ...
here, Affirm = testers have standing, "The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Laufer had standing to sue in federal court and had standing to pursue injunctive relief.[2]"