A Central District of California judge ruled that Potter Handy’s professional Plaintiff Andres Gomez did not have standing to bring a website accessibility lawsuit under the ADA against a car rental business. The Court held that Gomez had not provided any consequences resulting from his visit to the alleged inaccessible website, nor showcased a genuine intent to return to the website in the future. Detailed below are the main findings from the case.
- Under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine intent to return to the business.
- A plaintiff must prove that their inability to access information on a business’s website had concrete consequences.
- A plaintiff suffering from harm that is merely “informational” and “dignitary” is not sufficient.
- The Unruh Act (California’s state law version of the ADA) does not apply to persons who were not physically present in California when they experienced discrimination by a California-based business.
