Quarterly Review of Legal Decisions Regarding Accessibility – 2023

By | April 15, 2023

ADA Kiosks Legal Action Kiosks

This page on legal actions in self-service and related is a running log with personal commentary on legal, privacy and patent situations which impact unattended self-service.  We keep track of legal news that affects the unattended self-service market.  One of the best articles to monitor is Kiosk Accessibility: The Law is Paying Attention by Lainey Feingold. Another great source is Understanding The ADA blog by William Goren.

Legal actions can also be HIPAA violations of privacy data and also web accessibility (WCAG usually), which have financial and legal consequences.  If you have news of note send us an email at [email protected]

Notable Legal Actions and Related In Brief:

  • Apr 2023
    • Biometrics and Illinois – Christian Dior’s virtual “try on” glasses wins in Illinois under BIPA and facial recognition. Link
    • ADA Tester of Hotels SCOTUS to rule on — In the court papers, Acheson’s lawyers claimed that Laufer had filed over 600 lawsuits since 2018 targeting small hotels and bed and breakfasts and that the cost of litigating a case might put defendants into bankruptcy. “A cottage industry has arisen in which uninjured plaintiffs lob ADA lawsuits of questionable merit while using the threat of attorney’s fees to extract settlement payments,” Acheson’s lawyers said.
  • Mar 2023
  • Feb 2023
    • CVS and Dalton –– CVS class action claims blind, low-vision customers cannot independently use HealthHub kiosks. CVS Health Corporation failed to make its CVS HealthHub self-service kiosks independently usable for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, a new class action lawsuit alleges.  Dalton vs. CVS Lawsuit Brief — Here are some pictures of Healthhub kiosks which are basically cheap mounted tablets. LINK
    • Biometrics and Maryland — link on Biometric Update – State of Maryland legislators are debating five bills (four cross-filed and one separate) addressing biometric and other private data collected by private organizations as part of doing business. Members of the Computer & Communications Industry Association issued a statement saying any legislation needs to be narrowly written to protect “high-risk practices,” although without spelling out what that means.
    • Employees, Biometrics & Fingerprints — White Castle facing a fine of $17B for violating privacy of employees with fingerprint scanner. On February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court held that each scan or transmission of a person’s biometric identifiers is a separate violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004, the plaintiff was an employee at a White Castle restaurant. She alleged that White Castle, without obtaining the statutorily mandated consent, required her to scan her fingerprint multiple times each day to access company systems. The plaintiff argued that each scan since BIPA’s enactment in 2008 was a separate violation. White Castle argued that if any violation occurred, it was a single violation in 2008, when it first collected her fingerprints without obtaining proper consent. Thereafter, White Castle argued, each new scan was not a new “collection” of her fingerprints. By a 4-3 majority, the court agreed with the plaintiff that each scan was a separate violation. National Law ReviewWhite Castle could face multibillion-dollar judgment in Illinois privacy lawsuit,
    • Related:  Repeated Violations Doctrine
    • Nearly 2,000 lawsuits alleging violations of BIPA have been filed since 2017, yielding a series of massive settlements and judgments. Amazon, Facebook and others.
  • January 2023
    • Voice Recognition — Whole Foods Reaches $300k BIPA Settlement Over Voice Recognition Lawsuit — Whole Foods has reached a $297,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The lawsuit alleged that Whole Foods enrolled distribution center workers in a voice recognition system without properly obtaining consent and providing the necessary disclosures as required under BIPA. The settlement, which has received early approval from a state court judge, would see $545 paid out to each of the class action’s 330 workers.