In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a high-profile lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco against Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that Uber and its drivers have engaged in unlawful discrimination against riders with disabilities in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The civil complaint asserts that drivers have “routinely refuse[d] to serve individuals with disabilities,” including people traveling with service animals and stowable wheelchairs, and that Uber has failed to reasonably modify its policies and practices to prevent discriminatory conduct.

The DOJ’s complaint highlights several concerning practices: charging impermissible fees to passengers with service animals (like “cleaning” or cancellation fees), denying rides to those with service dogs, and refusing reasonable accommodations such as allowing riders with mobility limitations to sit in the front seat when necessary. The government sought injunctive relief to halt these practices, monetary damages for affected individuals (estimated at $125 million), and civil penalties.

The post DOJ Lawsuit Against Uber Explained: ADA Service Animal Rules and the Future of Autonomous Vehicles appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, businesses that are open to the public must provide accessible paths of travel, seating, restrooms, service counters, and parking. Even technical violations—such as a bathroom mirror mounted an inch too high, a restroom door requiring too much force to open, improper slopes at an entry ramp, or exterior dining tables without adequate knee clearance—can trigger litigation.

Coffee shops and breweries are particularly vulnerable because of:

The post ADA Lawsuits Against Coffee Shops and Breweries on the Rise: How Small Businesses Can Avoid Costly Accessibility Claims about Architectural Barriers and Websites appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

California is unique because ADA claims are almost always paired with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages—typically $4,000 per offense, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. This financial incentive has made California a hotspot for lawsuits against healthcare-related businesses of every size.

These claims are not limited to hospitals or large clinics. Targeted practices include physicians’ offices, internal and family medicine practices, dentists and orthodontists, oral surgeons, veterinarians and animal hospitals, physical therapy and chiropractic offices, mental health providers, psychologists and psychiatrists, urgent care centers, imaging and radiology facilities, dialysis centers, podiatrists, optometrists and ophthalmologists, audiologists, outpatient rehabilitation centers, fertility clinics, pain management practices, ambulatory surgery centers, addiction treatment facilities, medical spas and aesthetic salons, cosmetic and plastic surgery offices, acupuncture clinics, and specialty outpatient providers.

The post ADA Lawsuits Targeting Medical Practices: What All Healthcare Businesses Should Know appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

The ADA Framework: Title II vs. Title III

The ADA is a federal civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Two titles are most relevant to government enforcement actions.

The post DOJ and Government Enforcement of the ADA: What Public Entities and Businesses Should Expect in 2026 appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

Business owners are receiving a new kind of complaint or demand letter—often sent via Federal Express—accusing them of deploying “illegal spyware” or pixel technology that violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

These letters, frequently from firms like Pacific Trial Attorneys, don’t just allege that the business’ website is eavesdropping on chats; they claim the website is functioning as an illegal “trap and trace” device merely by collecting IP addresses or other data.

The post The Rise of “Wiretapping” Legal Claims: Business Websites Are Being Accused of Using “Trap and Trace” Devices appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

Below we discuss the legal requirements and highlight possible solutions to ensure compliance, including Streamline’s new DocAccess tool.

The Legal Landscape: Title II and Subpart H Requirements

The post Making PDFs Accessible Under Title II of the ADA: A Guide for Public Entities appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

California’s Anti-Spam Law: A Strict Framework for Email Compliance

Enacted to curb deceptive online advertising, Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 prohibits unsolicited commercial emails containing false or misleading information, particularly those sent from or to people in California. Unlike the federal CAN-SPAM Act (which emphasizes opt-outs and is mostly enforced by agencies), California’s law grants private rights of action, enabling class action lawsuits with hefty penalties. Practices that create legal risk include:

The post Pacific Trial Attorneys Demand Letters: Navigating California Anti-Spam Class Action Cases Under Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

The reality is, whether you can predict lawsuits or not, ADA compliance has been the law since at least 1991. The worst thing to do is ignore ADA compliance.

Building owners who lease to psychics and the businesses operators are equally liable to the plaintiff and both are frequently named in the same lawsuit. Whether you are the landlord or the tenant, here are a few things you may want to consider to provide better service to customers and to avoid litigation:

The post They May Predict the Future, But They Didn’t See This Coming: ADA Lawsuits Target Psychics and Fortune Tellers appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

Core Legal Framework: ADA Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189) prohibits discrimination in “places of public accommodation,” defined broadly to include hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and other common businesses offering goods or services to the public. Even older properties must at least remove architectural barriers when “readily achievable” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)), i.e., without undue difficulty or expense relative to the benefit. Newer construction and renovations bring a higher standard of compliance. It is a common misconception to believe the older properties are grandfathered in and do not need to comply with the ADA. Violations lead to injunctive relief (court orders to update the property) and attorney fees for the plaintiff under the ADA. Courts apply a nexus test in California: purely online businesses with no nexus to physical retail locations are not subject to the ADA (Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (2022)). However, other jurisdictions hold otherwise, so a purely online business could be sued and held liable in certain other states.

The post ADA Litigation in Los Angeles: Defending Unruh Act and ADA Lawsuits Against Businesses appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.

California’s Laws Make ADA Lawsuits More Attractive to Plaintiffs

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows for injunctive relief, which means a court can order you to fix violations, but does not award plaintiffs damages. California law changes that. Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act, plaintiffs can recover statutory damages of $4,000 per violation, per visit, plus attorney’s fees. California also does not have a blanket pre-suit notice requirement. Lawsuits can be and frequently are filed immediately, with no warning.

The post ADA Preparedness Series: California Is the Epicenter of ADA Serial Litigation appeared first on ADA Compliance and Defense Blog.