- New suits claim lack of web accessibility features in online employment applications violates California’s ADA equivalent law [Kristina M. Launey & Myra Villamor, Seyfarth Shaw]
- Sugar in candy? Who knew? [John O’Brien and John Breslin, Legal Newsline/Forbes] Slack-fill lawsuits reveal nonfunctional void within class-action industry [Baylen Linnekin]
- Musical instruments in court: the stories behind six famous gear disputes [Jay Laughton, Reverb last year]
- “Secret of David Copperfield’s signature trick revealed in slip-and-fall suit by audience volunteer” [ABA Journal]
- Given Congressional presence in area, California not entitled to use foie gras regulation to impose its views of duck and goose husbandry on producers outside state [Ilya Shapiro and Reilly Stephens on Cato cert amicus in Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Becerra]
- “The earliest versions of the “People’s Court” TV show used law professors as the judges. They were picked because they were articulate and looked like judges but weren’t state bar members; for bar members, being on the show was seen as unlawful advertising.” [@OrinKerr linking Roger M. Grace, Metropolitan News-Enterprise in 2003]
Filed under: California, chasing clients, class actions, eat drink and be merry, humor, music and musicians, web accessibility
5 Comments
The ADA attacks on the web are going to spoil the party for everyone.
The slack fill issue is absurd. While there may be some puffery involved, anyone with two eyes can figure it out. The issue for food sellers is that you need packaging large enough to get noticed on the shelf. For chips, the inflated bags keep the chips from getting crushed.
So why didn’t they want to sue including federal causes of action? After all, the rehab act of 73 as amended is applicable. And submitting a request for accommodation via a representative is kosher, or at least within the rules for ra requests.
I still would prefer that they be able to show that they made extensive good faith efforts to get things fixed rather than trying to continue litigation settlements as a profession.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/25/chicago-impound-debt-forfeiture
A follow-up on the crazy situation where the woman was stuck with her boyfriend’s tickets.
As can be seen here, the City of Chicago is acting horribly and illegally. If someone steals my tags and racks up thousands in fines, I am not liable, and any efforts on the part of the government to collect (once it knows the facts) should be vigorously prosecuted and people need to go to jail. Lawyers who participate in these schemes need to lose their licenses.
Law school faculty don’t need to be members of the bar, but certainly quite a few are since they file amicus briefs or actually try cases. I wonder what percentage of law school faculty are members of the bar?
Didn’t CA also try to regulate living conditions for out of state laying hens whose eggs were then sold in California?