I don't have all the details, this is just my understanding. Fortunately, my father in law had a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge. The lawyer had him pay a guy $300 to make the website compliaint, then they presented the changes and story (father in law has glaucoma) to the judge who agreed that the results should satisfy the plaintiff. I do know that my father in law sent a sample of their most popular seed products to the plaintiff after the case. Most are not suitable for "home growing," lol.
Glad it turned out that way. I think all such judgements should go towards creating access for all rather than enriching the individual.
Honestly, not a single bit of this anecdote sounds like injustice. Business owner ignored the law (or was ignorant of it) and got sued by someone because that's how the ADA works. The consequence is that the business owner was forced to bring their business into compliance with the law. In this case, they had to spend a trivial amount of money.
This is exactly how the ADA is supposed to work. That was the plan all along. It's intended consequences.
The plaintiff wanted money over a service they didn't even require access to. That's what makes it frivolous, especially when you see they specifically target small regional seed companies.
What ended up happening with the lawsuit?
I don't have all the details, this is just my understanding. Fortunately, my father in law had a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge. The lawyer had him pay a guy $300 to make the website compliaint, then they presented the changes and story (father in law has glaucoma) to the judge who agreed that the results should satisfy the plaintiff. I do know that my father in law sent a sample of their most popular seed products to the plaintiff after the case. Most are not suitable for "home growing," lol.
Glad it turned out that way. I think all such judgements should go towards creating access for all rather than enriching the individual.
Honestly, not a single bit of this anecdote sounds like injustice. Business owner ignored the law (or was ignorant of it) and got sued by someone because that's how the ADA works. The consequence is that the business owner was forced to bring their business into compliance with the law. In this case, they had to spend a trivial amount of money.
This is exactly how the ADA is supposed to work. That was the plan all along. It's intended consequences.
The plaintiff wanted money over a service they didn't even require access to. That's what makes it frivolous, especially when you see they specifically target small regional seed companies.