In recent years, business owners across California and the United States have faced a growing surge of lawsuits filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. While these laws were designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities, an increasing number of plaintiffs and law firms have exploited them as tools for profit, targeting small and mid-sized businesses through “drive-by” or “fishing” lawsuits aimed at forcing quick settlements.
As this trend continues, business owners must remain vigilant, understanding not only their rights but also the most effective legal defenses available.
Understanding ADA and Unruh Act “Fishing” Lawsuits
These lawsuits often begin with a seemingly harmless letter alleging accessibility violations, such as improper parking signage, restroom height discrepancies, or website accessibility barriers. Soon after, a complaint follows, threatening steep statutory damages and attorney fees unless the business agrees to settle quickly.
According to Paul P. Cheng, Esq., a former prosecutor, mediator, and now a leading Southern California trial attorney:
“The essence of these ADA lawsuits is "commercial extortion." Plaintiffs are betting that small business owners will pay to avoid the expense and stress of litigation. But every seemingly airtight complaint often contains procedural or substantive flaws that can be challenged with the right legal strategy.”
Common Legal Defenses and Effective Strategies
When served with an ADA or Unruh Act lawsuit, do not panic. The law provides multiple pathways to defend your rights and protect your business. Below are several proven defense strategies our firm has successfully employed:
1. Improper Defendant
Plaintiffs frequently sue the wrong party. Only property owners, operators, or those in control of the premises or website can be held liable.
For example, tenants are generally not responsible for areas outside their leased premises, such as shopping center common areas. In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed this rule. Verifying whether your business is the proper defendant should always be the first step in your defense.
2. Compliance or Equivalent Access Provided
Not every alleged violation constitutes non-compliance. Under Section 103 of the 2010 ADA Standards, businesses may use alternative designs that offer equivalent or better accessibility.
Moreover, California’s SB 269 provides a “safe harbor” for small businesses that correct certain minor violations (such as signage or ramp markings) within 15 days of receiving a complaint — shielding them from statutory damages.
3. Technical Infeasibility or Undue Burden
If compliance is technically impossible or would impose an undue financial burden, the law provides an exception. Under 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), businesses can defend themselves when modifications would cause structural infeasibility or fundamentally alter business operations.
Courts weigh cost, financial resources, and operational impact when assessing such claims.
4. Lack of Standing
To bring an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show an actual, imminent injury — not merely a technical violation.
If a plaintiff cannot prove they personally encountered the alleged barrier or have a genuine intent to return (as in Whitaker v. BPP East Union LLC), the court may dismiss the case for lack of standing.
5. Procedural Protections Under California Law
California offers several legislative shields to combat frivolous ADA claims:
- SB 1186: Allows defendants to request a stay of proceedings for early evaluation and restricts duplicate claims against the same property.
- AB 2093 & Civil Code §1938: Require ADA compliance responsibilities to be disclosed in commercial leases — clarifying landlord-tenant obligations.
- Federal HR 620: Mandates that plaintiffs give businesses notice and an opportunity (usually 60 days) to fix alleged violations before filing certain ADA suits.
The Rising Threat of Website and Mobile ADA Lawsuits
Attorney Paul P. Cheng notes that despite reforms like SB 1186, the number of lawsuits continues to climb — now expanding to digital spaces.
Website accessibility cases, based on WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), remain a legal gray area, with federal courts divided (e.g., Gil v. Winn-Dixie vs. Robles v. Domino’s Pizza). Nonetheless, plaintiff attorneys have aggressively pursued such cases.
Cheng emphasizes,
“Businesses must not surrender to vague or opportunistic claims. We have successfully challenged and defeated many of these lawsuits by exposing procedural flaws and overreaching demands.”
How Our Firm Can Help
At the Law Offices of Paul P. Cheng & Associates, our team provides aggressive and comprehensive defense for ADA and Unruh Act lawsuits. We specialize in:
- Case Evaluation: Identifying weaknesses and procedural flaws in the plaintiff’s claims.
- Strategic Defense Planning: Leveraging multiple defenses to seek early dismissal or favorable settlements.
- Compliance Consulting: Helping clients adopt proactive ADA policies and accessibility plans to prevent future claims.
- Insurance Coordination: Assisting clients in obtaining coverage for defense costs through commercial or EPLI policies.
Every ADA lawsuit poses both a financial and reputational risk. Our mission is to help you defend your business efficiently, strategically, and cost-effectively.
Final Thoughts
Settling is not your only option. The law gives you the tools to fight back. By acting quickly and working with an experienced ADA defense team, you can not only protect your business but also strengthen long-term compliance practices.
If your business has received an ADA or Unruh Act lawsuit — or even a demand letter from known serial litigants — take action immediately.
Contact the Law Offices of Paul P. Cheng & Associates at (626) 356-8880 or email info@pprclaw.com for a confidential consultation.