A California appellate court has found that ADA claims over public accommodation can’t proceed against an online-only business without a physical retail location, and that the plaintiff didn’t show the intentional discrimination required by California’s Unruh Act.
The unanimous panel decision in Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc. was issued earlier this month in California’s Second Appellate District.
“[W]e cannot infer intentional discrimination from Martinez’s alleged facts that he made CW aware of the discriminatory effect of CW’s facially neutral website, and that CW did not ameliorate these effects,” presiding Justice Frances Rothschild wrote. “As to the ADA violation theory, Martinez has not alleged, as he must in order for Title III of the ADA to apply, that CW’s website constitutes a ‘place of public accommodation.’ (42 U.S.C.§ 12182(a).) Under current law, we cannot read this phrase as including retail websites without any connection to a physical space. The statutory language does not include a category that encompasses such websites …”
Not only is the decision significant, it may resonate with the barrage of claims filed under Title III of the ADA and the state’s Unruh Act, Victor Gómez, executive director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) told the Northern California Record.
“This is a great first step of at least relieving some businesses from attacks from these predatory attorneys,” Gómez said. “And I hope it opens the eyes of the Attorney General, Governor, and state legislators, and helps them understand that it is happening in California more than anywhere else in the nation and why are we creating this climate for predatory lawsuits?”
What’s known as “drive-by” ADA lawsuits continue to impact businesses here, and prosecutors in San Francisco and Los Angeles have filed suit against a law firm that allegedly made thousands of ADA violation claims without visiting the actual businesses.
“We are awaiting a ruling on the demurrer which is assigned to Judge Karnow,” Randy Quezada, communications director, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, told the Record by email. “There is a case management conference scheduled for 9/14 if the case survives demurrer.”
People of State of California v. Potter Handy LLP was filed in April.
“We believe all the recent federal court rulings finding Potter Handy's clients lied vindicate our allegations and case, regardless whether Potter Handy wins the demurrer on a legal immunity point,” Quezada said.