University Puts 20,000 Lectures Behind A Registration Wall In Response To DOJ Pressure On Website Accessibility Compliance

from the nobody-wins dept

Back in 2012, a federal court ruled US websites were "places of public accommodation." The ruling (overturned on appeal) came in a lawsuit brought against Netflix by the National Association of the Deaf. It seems like an obvious conclusion -- more people get their information, news, and entertainment from the web than other sources. But the ruling had plenty of adverse consequences, especially for smaller, less profitable purveyors of online content.

Professor Eric Goldman -- who analyzes a ton of internet-related lawsuits -- had this to say at the time:

If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose. Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I'm not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs' lawyers will have a long checklist of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.

The payoff of this lawsuit -- along with the federal government's requirements for making websites "accessible" -- is finally here. A California university is placing 20,000 audio and video lectures behind a registration wall, making them less accessible to everybody, rather than risk being sued for not making them "accessible" to those with disabilities.

The University of California, Berkeley, will cut off public access to tens of thousands of video lectures and podcasts in response to a U.S. Justice Department order that it make the educational content accessible to people with disabilities.

Today, the content is available to the public on YouTube, iTunes U and the university’s webcast.berkeley site. On March 15, the university will begin removing the more than 20,000 audio and video files from those platforms -- a process that will take three to five months -- and require users sign in with University of California credentials to view or listen to them.

This move has more to do with the DOJ's ADA* accessibility stance, although that stance roughly aligns with the court's 2012 findings. The DOJ is named specifically in the university's statements as being the impetus for it locking up its past content. Future releases will be issued with an eye on compliance, but past lectures are gone for good unless you happen to have the right credentials to view them.

*[This acutally stems from the FCC, not the ADA. Nate Hoffelder has more details in the comments. UPDATE: never mind.]

Then there's this part of the university's statement, which hints it may not all be related to accessibility-compliance.

Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

I'm not sure how much of a problem Berkeley has had with content piracy. This statement could mean it's rampant or could simply mean it's something the university's lawyers have mentioned in passing as a concern. Either way, the move is related to control. What the public can't see, it can't complain about. And that keeps the DOJ at bay, even if it does little for the general public.

However, the piracy part of the statement might become relevant in the near future. It also shows the university's spokesperson isn't aware most of the lectures can't be "pirated." LBRY.io has already mirrored the 20,000 files due for removal, and it notes its move is compliant with the terms governing the sharing and distribution of the recorded lectures.

The vast majority of the lectures are licensed under a Creative Commons license that allows attributed, non-commercial redistribution. The price for this content has been set to free and all LBRY metadata attributes it to UC Berkeley.

The university may have a point about "personal profit," but simply hosting lectures at a site that sells stuff or makes money from ads isn't the same thing as "reusing content for personal profit." And the license the university uses doesn't require permission beforehand.

In the end, what we have is another regulation failure, where best laid plans become self-sabotaging debacles. Attempting to make the web universally-usable is an impossibility. No one's going out of their way to cut the deaf or blind out of the international conversation, but demanding all US sites be compliant with the DOJ's requirements is like demanding all books be made available in Braille and audio format. It's something only a few publishers can afford to do. Even fewer can afford to engage in a legal battle with the federal government over a lack of compliance, which means increased enforcement efforts will only result in less available content. That does nothing to level the playing field for Americans with disabilities.

Filed Under: ada, compliance, doj, websites
Companies: uc berkeley

Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Now Under FBI Investigation For His ADA Lawsuits

from the lawyer-working-on-fraud-hat-trick dept

The wheels of justice have turned to the point where Team Prenda copyright trolling efforts have netted John Steele and Paul Hansmeier federal indictments. The list of charges the pair face is ugly: mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and suborning perjury.

After Prenda's many copyright lawsuits fell apart, Paul Hansmeier decided to start trolling small, local businesses with ADA lawsuits, hoping to turn what little legal expertise he has into profitable settlements. During this time, Hansmeier was also facing the dismantling of an attempted bankruptcy filing -- one that very much looked like an attempt to avoid paying judgments resulting from Prenda's years of bullshit. To avoid having his assets turned over to creditors, Hansmeier engaged in some creative accounting, like handing off money to a newly-formed trust and... dumping cash into a cardboard box.

Hansmeier's ADA lawsuits weren't particularly successful and his efforts were beginning to attract judicial scrutiny. Worse, it appears the lawsuits have also attracted the attention of the FBI, which means Hansmeier could soon be facing a second set of indictments.

Jennifer L. Urban, an attorney for DSA [Disability Support Alliance], said in court filings that the nonprofit was a victim of a crime perpetrated by Smith and Hansmeier, his former attorney.

Urban wrote that the DSA filed criminal complaints with the Burnsville Police Department against Smith and another former DSA director, Aaron Dalton, over a series of cash withdrawals earlier this year. A Burnsville detective helped DSA retrieve $4,400 that Dalton was captured on camera taking out of an ATM but was unable to recover $6,900 withdrawn by Smith, Urban said.

The FBI, meanwhile, notified Urban in October that DSA was a possible victim of a federal crime. She wrote Wednesday that DSA is “cooperating with the ongoing federal criminal investigation/prosecution of Paul Hansmeier.”

During the short period Hansmeier was in the ADA trolling business, he filed nearly 100 lawsuits against Minnesota small businesses. Some settlements were obtained, but not nearly as many as Hansmeier would have hoped. His law license was suspended this fall, which meant his trolling efforts have to continue without his assistance. Someone who helped Hansmeier hide money from creditors is now the new face of Minnesota ADA trolling.

His wife, Padraigin Browne, picked up his pending disability access lawsuits — including the CCRE federal suit — and has since filed a number of her own.

Apparently, Hansmeier has more cash on hand -- and has helped others similarly situated in the ADA trolling business.

DSA Board Chair Eric Wong hired Urban’s firm late last year, partly to investigate suspected internal theft. The investigation revealed the theft by Smith and Dalton but also that Hansmeier helped four DSA directors — Smith, Dalton, Zachary Hillesheim and Melanie Davis — steal settlement proceeds from litigation efforts, according to Urban.

She said the investigation also revealed that Hansmeier got $312,218 — more than 70 percent of the revenue generated by DSA litigation — from July 2014 to June 2016 despite never litigating a case to a verdict and being awarded attorney’s fees or invoicing DSA for payment.

A letter [PDF] from the FBI to Jennifer Urban of the DSA confirms the investigation. The letter informs her of her rights as a victim and cautions that investigations are often lengthy and not easily resolved. But the good news is that another set of justice wheels are grinding, however slowly. And at the end of the grind is a lawyer who never found a way to turn his law degree into an honest living.

Filed Under: ada, ada troll, copyright troll, fbi, investigation, paul hansmeier

Bankruptcy Fight May Be The Least Of Team Prenda's Concerns, As The FBI Comes Knocking

from the whoo-boy dept

If you've been following the Prenda Law saga around here for any length of time, you're aware that it's been going on for years, with sketchy copyright trolling practices that appeared to include Team Prenda uploading their own content to torrent sites, tracking who downloaded them, and then filing questionable lawsuits. That scheme fell apart after a series of judges, led by Judge Otis Wright, called out Team Prenda for committing fraud on the courts, and referred the issue to the feds, while also hitting them with a fine. That was three years ago. Other courts piled on more fines and attorneys' fees -- and more referrals to the feds. After the second such referral, Ken "Popehat" White noted that these things take time, but that something would probably happen eventually:

The wheels turn slowly, friends, but make no mistake, the wheels turn. The wheels are grinding down Team Prenda, and doing so faster and faster every month. With two different federal judges referring the matter to state bars and the U.S. Attorney's office, the probability of bar investigations and federal grand jury investigations approaches certainty.

Of course, it's been three years since then and a few things have happened. One of the three main members of Team Prenda (though, probably the least involved of the three) passed away. But the other two are both facing bar complaints over ethical violations. Paul Hansmeier also famously tried to declare bankruptcy, but appears to have lied to the court in the process. Fight Copyright Trolls just recently had an update on that case, and suffice it to say, it's hilarious. Hansmeier has not just lost his lawyer after she told the court that she could no longer represent him and be a servant of the court (i.e., heavily hinting that Hansmeier was likely asking her to lie to the court), but he's also lashed out at the trustee handling his bankruptcy for... buying a new car.

And, of course, both Hansmeier and Steele have moved on to a revamped version of the same old trolling trick, but this time using the Americans with Disabilities Act as the fulcrum, rather than copyright law.

But, it appears that all that may be small potatoes. Because, as White told us three years ago, the wheels of justice do keep turning, and he now has strong indications that not only is the FBI actively investigating Steele and Hansmeier for fraud, but that they may be just about ready to move on to the next steps:

Based on my 21 years in the federal criminal justice system, I believe the letter reflects an active, determined investigation in its later stages. The letter represents an abandonment of operational security and confidentiality; it suggests the FBI no longer sees a need for stealth. That, in turn, suggests that the FBI believes it's already developed the evidence it needs to prove the substance of its case (that Team Prenda committed wire and/or mail fraud) and is just identifying as many victims as possible for potential witnesses and to establish the amount of damages. Bear in mind that under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the more money wrongdoers made, the more time they're facing.

Now, to be fair, over the years we've noted many times that the DOJ often misrepresents things in criminal filings, so it will be interesting to see what charges are actually filed, assuming that the case really is ready to move. But as White also noted, "Team Prenda needs federal criminal defense attorneys, and needs them right now."

Filed Under: ada, ada troll, copyright, copyright troll, fbi, fraud, john steele, paul hansmeier
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Continues To Win Enemies, Influence Legislators With His ADA Trolling, Hiding Of Assets

from the too-bad-he-can't-monetize-the-hate-he's-earned... dept

Everyone behind the failed clown school that was Prenda Law deserves what's happening to Paul Hansmeier. Unfortunately, it appears Hansmeier is taking the most damage from the fallout of Prenda's disastrous copyright trolling… or at least he's the one doing most of his suffering in public.

Of course, it's his own fault. Rather than get out of the trolling business, Hansmeier doubled down. He swapped porn stars for wheelchairs, pursuing small businesses for Americans with Disabilities Acts violations. Fronting as a public interest, Hansmeier's "Disabilities Support Alliance" is every bit the serial litigant Prenda was.

Now, it's falling apart. As is Hansmeier himself. He's currently facing possible disbarment for his participation in Prenda's fraudulent behavior. He just lost one of his lawsuits against a Minnesota landlord for bogus ADA violations -- one out of more than 100 lawsuits he's filed against small businesses in the area. If Hansmeier's asked to cough up legal fees, one wonders where he'll find the money.

I suppose he might find some cash in the "trust" he claims handles his finances without his direct intervention. (Court filing via Fight Copyright Trolls)

According to the Trust Agreement:

a. the beneficiaries of The Mill Trust are Hansmeier’s parents, siblings, future spouse and any future descendants;
b. The Mill Trust is an irrevocable trust;
c. the trustee, Browne, had the sole discretion, subject to Hansmeier’s right to veto, to distribute the assets of The Mill Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries; and
d. the Trust Agreement is executed by Hansmeier as “grantor” and Browne as “trustee” on December 28, 2010.

"Browne" is Padraigin Browne, Hansmeier's wife. Browne has apparently been moving money out of bank accounts and into this trust -- supposedly to handle "personal expenses." Quite obviously, the moves are being made to keep money from being rerouted to pay off judgments from Prenda's misdeeds and debtors seeking compensation. Hansmeier recently filed for bankruptcy, hoping to shield his assets from being seized/sold to pay Prenda judgments.

So, his cash -- sitting in bank accounts where it could be seized -- is being moved to his trust. (Hansmeier is also apparently using a Scottrade account and a shell entity ["Alpha Law Firm"] to keep his funds from being seized to pay off ~$400,000 in judgments. The "Monyet" name attached to the Scottrade account is another shell company.)

After Hansmeier had transferred $175,000 into the TCF Bank account held solely in Browne’s name (the “TCF Account”), Browne contacted TCF Bank and made arrangements for a TCF Bank branch to have $150,000 of cash on hand so that Browne could make a $150,000 cash withdrawal. Browne then went to the bank on December 13, 2013 and withdrew $150,000 in cash from the TCF Account.

[...]

On February 7, 2014, Hansmeier transferred an additional $70,000 from the Monyet Scottrade Account to the TCF Account.

Browne, after checking with TCF Bank to see what would be an appropriate amount that the bank branch would have “on hand” without making pre-arrangements, began to withdraw additional cash from the bank in $2,000 increments.

In the months of February-March, 2014, Browne withdrew at least $28,000 in cash from the TCF Account. She had also withdrawn $2,000 in cash from the TCF Account in November of 2013.

What Hansmeier refers to as "The Mill Trust" is actually something commonly utilized by small-time drug dealers and the lower rungs of the mob's organizational chart.

Those cash withdrawals, when added to the $150,000 in cash already hidden at Browne and Hansmeier’s home, resulted in a total of approximately $180,000 in cash hidden in a box at the home shared by Hansmeier and Browne.

The court has been unimpressed with Hansmeier's behavior so far. The following order was issued before his Cardboard Box In A Closet Trust came to light. (This opinion also provided by Fight Copyright Trolls.)

The debtor further argues that if he succeeded on the merits of the Claim Objections he would have been in a position to confirm a plan that paid 100% to general unsecured creditors, with interest. The deadline for filing claims is April 22, 2016, so there is no way of knowing at this point what the total claims will be in the case. To date a total of $2,493,510.17 in claims have been filed. Of that amount, $1,612,731.94 was the subject of the Claims Objections. Assuming for purposes of this motion only that the Claim Objections were sustained,2 the total claims would be reduced to $880,778.23.3 The debtor offered no evidence that he would have had non-exempt cash to fund an immediate payment of claims in full at the time of the conversion. Thus, the debtor would have to pay the claims over time with interest through his plan. The debtor is currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding, the result of which could result in the suspension of his license to practice law or disbarment. The debtor has offered no evidence as to how he would fund plan payments if he is no longer licensed to practice law, which is his source of income.

The debtor asserts that the court’s decision to convert was based on prepetition conduct, a desire to punish the debtor for that prior conduct and an attempt to deny him a fresh start. While the court did recite rulings by numerous courts across the country that have found the debtor engaged in serious misconduct before those courts, and had been sanctioned for that conduct, those rulings merely established the background for the court’s finding that the debtor has continued his pattern and practice of being untruthful. The debtor’s misconduct did not stop when he filed his bankruptcy petition. Rather, the court found that the debtor had filed misleading or false documents in this case and provided potentially false testimony at his Rule 2004 examination.

Add to this the fact that Minnesota legislators -- backed by the small businesses Hansmeier has pursued for dubious ADA violations -- are now attempting to shut down Hansmeier's new money train.

Rowland, who says her restaurant was in compliance with the disability access requirements, says she eventually settled the lawsuit for $8,500 to avoid paying even more in legal fees.

“This is someone taking advantage of a very big loophole in our legal system,” Rowland said. She testified before state lawmakers Thursday as lawmakers introduced a law that seems to be aimed directly at attorneys like Hansmeier.

One lawmaker even joked, “The suggestion was made that we make this the Paul Hansmeier Act.”

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce worked on the bi-partisan legislation with the Minnesota State Council of Disability and the Human Rights Department.

“We're really just trying to limit some of the litigation lawsuit abuse that's been occurring,” Chamber of Commerce Vice President Beth Kadoun said.

The legislation would give businesses at least 30 days to respond to lawsuits, shift the burden of proof in some cases to those filing the lawsuit and restrict attorneys from demanding immediate settlements.

Hansmeier appears to be hiding the assets he does have and presumably is attempting to pay off his debts by intimidating small businesses into lowball settlements. If he's disbarred -- or if the legislation passes -- his sole revenue stream will dry up. Then what?

The first step is already in place. Hansmeier has been ordered to liquidate his assets. His appeal motion to stay Chapter 7 conversion pending appeal has failed and the judge presiding over his bankruptcy case is no more receptive to Hansmeier's actions than the judges presiding over the tail end of the Prenda debacle.

The debtor has refused and continues to refuse to disclose complete and accurate financial information. The debtor has dissipated over $80,000 in estate assets since the case was filed. Other courts have already found that the debtor exhibits a “serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice” and “a relentless willingness to lie to the court on paper and in person.”

There's certainly more to come in the next few months. Hansmeier hasn't shown any interest in scaling back his trolling efforts and seems to be hellbent on pissing off every judge he appears in front of. He's likely going to end up without a license to practice law -- which appears to be his only marketable skill. And it's a skill he can't wield without being abusive and dishonest.

Might as well fire up another batch of Orville Redenbacher's Schadenfreude-Flavored Gourmet Popping Corn and settle in. For a steady stream of updates, I wholeheartedly recommend following Sophisticated Jane Doe and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Dan Browning, from whom much of the above has been sourced. For additional entertainment, Hansmeier himself has rather belatedly joined Twitter, although most of his posts are just self-interested hashtag ADA lawsuit spam.

Filed Under: ada, bankruptcy, hiding assets, padraigin browne, paul hansmeier, trolling
Companies: alpha law, mill trust, monyet, prenda, prenda law

DailyDirt: Nature Vs. CRISPR

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The reality of designer babies seems to be more and more likely -- especially now that gene editing tools like CRISPR are becoming more refined and widespread in labs around the world. Legitimate concerns over a modern form of eugenics are being raised, and the ethical debates are getting less theoretical as the science pushes the boundaries of what can be done. People might be able to activate or delete genes without fully understanding the results, and the advances that can eliminate genetic disorders could also eliminate certain minorities or traits that are not necessarily disabilities.

• British researchers will be performing gene-editing experiments on human embryos, but they're not going to be making full-term babies -- yet. Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is the first regulator to approve this kind of genetic tinkering (although plenty of countries don't require permission at all), and British lawmakers have previously voted in favor of allowing babies to be made from the DNA of three parents to prevent genetic disorders. (So perhaps a modified clone of Benedict Cumberbatch will actually become Khan Noonien Singh someday.) [url]
• Genetic discrimination is going to be a thing soon. A kid was removed from school because he has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis (and not the actual condition). A lawsuit is now working its way through the system to determine if the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) or the Americans With Disabilities Act will apply to future such cases of discrimination. [url]
• Someone might have the genes for a particular trait, but it may never be expressed. Researchers have discovered a way to activate some genes that are inaccessible and non-functioning -- but so far only in mice. Are you pondering what I'm pondering? [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ada, biology, biotech, crispr, designer babies, dna, eugenics, gattaca, gene activation, gene editing, genetics, germline, gina

Prenda Lawyer's ADA Shakedown Efforts Running Into Resistance From Public, Judges

from the hoping-this-ends-up-in-tears-and-sanctions-as-well dept

Paul Hansmeier, having learned all he needs to know about practicing law from his years in the trolling trenches as part of Prenda Law, is now shaking down businesses using ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuits. This new (but not really) approach is slightly more palatable to the general public than attempting to fish a few bucks from randy torrenters via infringement lawsuits, but not by much. Those on the receiving end of these shakedown efforts don't see much difference between Hansmeier's new approach and the actions that netted him and Prenda Law sanctions from multiple courts.

Hansmeier still seems enthralled with the possibility of easy money, even if his experience with Prenda Law didn't exactly pan out the way its principals hoped. Most are still in the process of extracting themselves from the flaming wreckage of Prenda, but they're limping away, rather than strutting. Some may even face jail time for contempt.

Hansmeier and his non-profit (Disability Support Alliance) -- which exists nowhere but the Minnesota business registry and as a nominal plaintiff in his 50+ ADA lawsuits -- are running into roadblocks on Easy Buck Ave. One of the businesses he recently sued addressed his allegations by filing a $50,000 counterclaim for abuse of process and civil conspiracy.

Now, there's more trouble on the way.

Cal Brink was tired of the lawsuits that just kept coming. Since the first suit claiming lack of disability access was filed more than a year ago, businesses in this southwest Minnesota town of nearly 14,000 people have been worried that they, too, would be hit.

Nine lawsuits have been filed here so far by the Disability Support Alliance, a nonprofit group formed last summer, including one against the only bowling alley in town. The owner said he will soon close rather than pay the DSA’s $5,500 settlement offer or make the $20,000 of changes needed to comply with the Americans with ­Disabilities Act.

“Nobody fights them, because it’s going to cost you more to fight,” said Brink, executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Now Marshall is fighting back. Working in concert with the Minnesota State Council on Disability, Brink developed an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation.

The plan has won the attention of the state Department of Human Rights, which hopes it could be used in other communities hit by serial litigation.

Since the putative goal is to improve access for the disabled, you'd think something called the "Disability Support Alliance" would be behind it. But the DSA isn't about improving access. It's about making money. Eric Wong, a member of the four-person-strong DSA says companies just need to pay it first and worry about complying with the law later.

His group “is currently in the process of producing a voluntary mass settlement agreement for those businesses in Marshall that are ready to confess to their crime, fully comply … and pay the damages/restitution that they are liable for under the law,” Wong said in an e-mail.

“The lawsuits will stop when there is no more access crime to prosecute,” he said. Many businesses “fail to understand that … we are now a zero tolerance state.”

Roughly translated: the trolling will continue until it's run off the rails by the public or the courts. The lawsuits have already caught the eye of Hennepin County's chief judge, which noted that the flurry of filings "raised the specter of serial litigation" and has ordered all DSA/Hansmeier's lawsuits filed in this county be handled by one judge. This will probably prompt Hansmeier to take his "business" elsewhere, rather than deal with extra scrutiny from a judge who won't have to connect the dots between multiple filings in multiple venues. With any luck, Hansmeier's efforts elsewhere will be greeted with the same local resistance and judicial distrust.

Filed Under: ada, ada trolling, copyright trolling, eric wong, john steele, minnesota, paul hansmeier, serial litigation
Companies: disability support alliance, prenda, prenda law

Former Prenda Lawyer Hit With A $50,000 Counterclaim In ADA Shakedown Lawsuit

from the trolling-for-ADA-dollars dept

Late in 2013, Paul Hansmeier, formerly of Prenda Law's Legal Buffoonery on Wheels Copyright Death Suicide Squad, realized that participating in a multi-jurisdictional legal train wreck had left him oddly unfulfilled. If the promise contained in his law degree was ever to be fulfilled, he would need to reassess his shakedown-focused lawyering.

After an indeterminable amount of thought, Hansmeier apparently arrived at the conclusion that -- unfulfilled promise or no -- he was really only good at one thing: shaking people down. And, sadly, he wasn't even all that great at that. But "sue what you know," as they say, and Hansmeier went about rebranding himself as a Champion of the Weak and Underprivileged.

No longer would he be throwing shaky demand letters and even shakier lawsuits at Household Members Voted Most Likely To Download Porn by the loose confederation of shakedown artists d/b/a An Actual Law Firm ("Come see our letterhead!"). That was the old Paul Hansmeier.

The new Paul Hansmeier would instead be throwing shaky lawsuits and demand letters at any company whose towel racks were located more than 32" above the ground or whose entry threshold was a ¼" above the legally-mandated height. The smaller the company the better, as they rarely even bothered to show up in court and would instead settle for a small fee.

The new Paul Hansmeier's operations were so efficient he could barely keep himself stocked in A4. Filings were submitted so fast not even the plaintiffs were aware they were listed as plaintiffs. And it was working, to a limited extent. Hansmeier was able to knock over a few mom-and-pop businesses for a few grand each. But now he's run into Kahler Hotels, which not only isn't interested in his ADA shakedown claims, but is countersuing him for $50,000+. (h/t to Dan Browning of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

In its response to Hansmeier's complaint, Kahler denies a majority of the allegations before moving on to its own complaints.

COUNT I - ABUSE OF PROCESS

1. Defendants are owners of real property located in Rochester, Minnesota.

2. Plaintiffs filed and served the instant action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and unfair discrimination.

3. Plaintiffs have an ulterior purpose in pursuing the claims set forth in their Complaint.

4. Plaintiffs’ Complaint misuses and perverts the purpose of a civil action.

5. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ abuse of process, Defendants have sustained damages in excess of $50,000.

COUNT II - CIVIL CONSPIRACY

6. Defendants incorporate in this paragraph the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5 as though they were fully set forth herein.

7. The Plaintiffs are engaged in a civil conspiracy to accomplish some concerted action, which injures Defendants.

8. The Plaintiffs did commit, and executed certain acts in pursuance of certain torts as previously delineated against the Defendants.

9. That as a result of the Plaintiffs’ tortious conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs did conspire and agree to commit such acts.

10. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Defendants have sustained damages in excess of $50,000.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for entry of judgment as follows:

1. Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint as alleged;

2. Defendants are awarded damages in excess of $50,000 together with interest, costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees; and

3. The court order such further relief as it deems just and equitable.

Whether or not the counterclaims (which are really, really vague) hold up remains to be seen, but this motion should give Hansmeier second thoughts about trolling this particular venue for easy ADA cash.

Filed Under: abuse of process, ada, ada trolling, americans with disabilities, paul hansmeier, shakedown, trolling
Companies: disability support alliance, kahler hotels, prenda

Two Court Rulings Completely Disagree With Each Other Over Whether Websites Need To Comply With Americans With Disabilities Act

from the waiting-for-the-supreme-court dept

On March 19th, there was a ruling [pdf] in a case in a federal district court in Vermont, brought by the National Federation for the Blind against Scribd, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applied to the internet, and thus Scribd had to comply with the ADA. The specific concern is whether or not a website is a "place of public accommodation." Three years ago there was a similar ruling against Netflix (also brought by the National Federation for the Blind), which we noted had some troubling aspects to it. Since then, there have been a number of cases that have gone the other way. And, indeed, just this week the 9th Circuit appeals court upheld a lower court ruling [pdf] saying that Netflix does not need to comply with the ADA.

The 9th Circuit ruling made quick work of things, noting that it has ruled on this issue before and websites are not places of public accommodation:

We have previously interpreted the statutory term “place of public accommodation” to require “some connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical place.” ... Because Netflix’s services are not connected to any “actual, physical place[],” Netflix is not subject to the ADA.

The court in the Scribd, case, however, sees things differently (and, Vermont is a long way from the 9th Circuit, so those precedents do not apply in Vermont). The Vermont court is well aware that the 9th Circuit -- and others -- don't think websites are places of public accommodation:

On the narrow end, the Ninth, Third, and Sixth Circuits each considered ADA claims brought by an employee who received benefits through his or her employer that were issued by a third party insurance company. All three courts held that Title III did not apply because there was not a sufficient connection between the discrimination the plaintiffs alleged and a physical place. Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “some connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical place is required”); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 613 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding “public accommodation” and the list of examples in the statute were not ambiguous and did not refer to non-physical access); Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1011 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (noting that “a public accommodation is a physical place” and a benefit plan offered by an employer is not a good offered by a place of public accommodation).

However, the Vermont court also notes that other Circuits have interpreted the ADA more broadly:

On the broad end, other circuit courts have read Title III to apply even in the absence of some connection to a physical place. In Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994), the First Circuit explained that public accommodations are not limited to physical structures. The court reasoned that by including “travel service” on the list of examples in the definition, Congress clearly contemplated that “service establishments” could include providers of services that do not require a person to physically enter a structure or site but may instead conduct their business by telephone or correspondence. Id. It would be “absurd” to conclude people who enter an office to purchase a service are protected by the ADA but people who purchase the same service over the telephone or by mail are not.

It lists a few other examples as well -- including the Netflix case from 2012 -- and then notes: "Clearly there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the language at issue here." And thus, it comes down on the side of saying the ADA should apply, noting how important a law it was in stopping discrimination. It leans heavily on that 2012 ruling against Netflix:

Taking into account all of the relevant background information explored above, the Court finds Judge Ponsor’s reasoning in Netflix persuasive. The Internet is central to every aspect of the “economic and social mainstream of American life.” PGA Tour, 532 U.S. at 675. In such a society, “excluding businesses that sell services through the Internet from the ADA would ‘run afoul of the purposes of the ADA and would severely frustrate Congress’s intent that individuals with disabilities fully enjoy the goods, services, privileges, and advantages available indiscriminately to other members of the general public.” Netflix, 869 F. Supp. 2d at 200 (quoting Carparts, 37 F.3d at 20).

The Court must therefore determine whether the services Scribd offers properly fall within any of the general categories of public accommodations listed in the statute. Construing the list of categories liberally, Plaintiffs have persuasively argued that Scribd’s services fall within at least one of the following categories: “place of exhibition or entertainment,” a “sales or rental establishment,” a “service establishment,” a “library,” a “gallery,” or a “place of public display or collection.” ... Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Scribd owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. Accordingly, Scribd’s motion to dismiss is denied.

With so many conflicting rulings, it sounds like this is a situation where either Congress needs to update the ADA to clarify, or the Supreme Court needs to step in. And while we're very much against discrimination, broadly applying the ADA to websites would have some serious consequences, going well beyond what the law is supposed to be doing. We're already seeing folks like Team Prenda abusing the ADA to shake down small physical shops -- and you can bet that if the law is determined to apply widely to websites, they'll quickly return to their old ways of shaking down folks online as well. Yes, websites should strive to be created to accommodate people with different issues, but using a law that was clearly designed for physical retail stores, and saying it needs to automatically apply to all websites seems like a bad way to do this.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, ada, americans with disabilities act, internet, place of public accommodation, vermont, websites
Companies: netflix, scribd

John Steele Looking To Join Former Prenda Lawyer Paul Hansmeier In ADA Lawsuit Shakedown Business

from the once-a-parasite... dept

For more than a year now, Paul Hansmeier has attempted to offset the losses generated by the flagging Prenda Law brand with class action lawsuits predicated on supposed ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) violations. Hansmeier isn't suddenly a do-gooding social warrior seeking equitable treatment for disabled Americans. He's just shifted the focus of his modus operandi. Hansmeier sues and sues and sues, offering out-of-court settlements to the defendants. This is money Hansmeier shouldn't theoretically be able to demand, but he's found a loophole that works for him.

In most cases, federal and state laws governing disability access don’t provide punitive relief. They can only be used to get property owners to correct shortcomings and to recover the plaintiff’s reasonable legal expenses. However, Hansmeier has been making claims under a Minnesota law that the property owners are committing a bias offense, which is a misdemeanor. In correspondence seeking a settlement with Peterson, he wrote that the law exposes defendants to a fine of $500 per incident, as well as punitive damages.

Using this, Hansmeier has demanded anywhere from $2,500 to $15,000 from the businesses he's sued. The end result has been some companies paying up rather than fighting back, while others have decided to cease doing business entirely. The 84-year-old owner of an antique shop targeted by a Hansmeier suit has closed her business as a result of his litigious actions. At the point it shut down, it was making around "$50 a day." Now, the business is completely inaccessible -- both to the disabled and non-disabled alike.

Like copyright trolling, the hit rate may be low but the margin is comfortably high. Only a small percentage of those sued need to pay up to ensure profitability. Hansmeier has managed to extract a few settlements at this point, which will only encourage him to continue exploiting a good law for negative ends. The biggest hurdle he faces now is his own terrible reputation.

[T]he chief judge of Hennepin County District Court has ordered that a half dozen of Hansmeier’s disability cases be reassigned to a single judge to ensure that they’re handled uniformly.

“ … the serial nature of these cases … raises the specter of litigation abuse, and Mr. Hansmeier’s history reinforces this concern,” Chief Judge Peter Cahill wrote.

The Minnesota attorney general’s office recently referred complaints about Hansmeier to the board that disciplines attorneys for ethical violations, even as he continues to press for cash settlements with small business owners.

The lure of easy money has now attracted another one of Prenda's principals: John Steele.

DarthSkeptic tweeted out two bits of information that point to Steele moving from one shakedown business to another.

On December 30, 2014, John Steele incorporated the "Accessibility Law Group, LLC" in the state of Illinois (screenshot below as the Illinois Secretary of State's business search provides no permalink to search results). The address of the "business" traces back to virtual offices offered by DaVinci Virtual Office Solutions, which would suggest Steele plans to pursue businesses for ADA violations without actually having to set up (physical) shop in Illinois.


He's also renewed his Illinois law license.


Given Steele's past, one should probably expect a flurry of filings in the near future, pursuing low-risk targets with low-to-medium settlement offers, much like Hansmeier's "work" in Minnesota. The paperwork can be filed from anywhere with work farmed out to local lawyers willing to do the groundwork in exchange for a percentage of collected settlements.

Steele's new hunting grounds favor his chosen business model. Time Magazine pointed out in a 2008 article about ADA lawsuit abuse that Illinois (along with California, Hawaii and Florida) is one of the easiest states to file (and collect on) frivolous lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Foundation has also called out Illinois' flawed legal system in the past, naming it one of the nation's foremost "judicial hellholes." One of the issues specifically listed is the willingness of the state to entertain lawsuits filed by non-residents -- something that works in Steele's favor if he doesn't actually reside in Illinois. Prenda Law was nominally a Chicago operation, but also included work done from Florida and (see Hansmeier) Minnesota.

Once a troll, always a troll, it seems. Prenda Law may no longer be an entity, but the lawyers behind it are back in the settlement business. Sure, ADA violations may be more publicly palatable than chasing porn downloaders, but underneath it all, it's still the same shady business that has the potential to wreak the same sort of financial havoc on its victims.

Filed Under: ada, copyright trolling, illinois, john steele, lawsuits, minnesota, paul hansmeier, shakedowns, trolling
Companies: accessibility law group, prenda, prenda law

Paul Hansmeier Dismisses Case That His 'Client' Claims Was Filed Without Her Permission

from the about-time dept

So, remember how Paul Hansmeier's latest scheme has been to file a bunch of cases against small businesses, claiming their websites violated the Americans with Disabilities Act? The same lawyer who is getting slammed by courts all over the country for his shady copyright trolling practices appeared to be up to a new form of trolling -- a view that was strongly supported when one of the plaintiffs in one of these ADA cases, Lily Poss, claimed that she had "no idea" that Hansmeier was filing lawsuits on her behalf. That's a major no-no by a lawyer already very deep in trouble. And it took all of about a day for Hansmeier to file to dismiss the case in which he "represented" Poss -- though he did so "without prejudice," meaning that the case could potentially be refiled again in the future.

Update: And... another one's gone too.

Filed Under: ada, disabilities, lawsuits, lily poss, paul hansmeier, trolling
Companies: class justice, prenda, prenda law