ADA / Web Accessibility
Premium
$500
Captured Jun 14, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #901
What's for sale here is a dated, hashed snapshot of a defendant's live tracking behavior, marketing representations, and consent UX, sealed under FRE 901 chain of custody on the day we captured it. Defendants rewrite their policies and pull their pixels the moment a complaint lands — this record is the only proof of what the site was doing before.
Case at a glance
LocationHQ: Oregon
Nat'l classScope varies — ADA Title III
ArbitrationArb risk — mass-arbitration target
ClaimsADA Title III / Robles v. Domino's (9th Cir.) / Unruh Civil Rights Act / NY State Human Rights Law
**ADA Title III Web Accessibility — Consumer Travel Platform**
This consumer-facing vacation rental platform faces potential liability under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, *Robles v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.* (9th Cir. 2019), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and New York State Human Rights Law for barriers to digital access and potentially misleading booking representations.
The platform represents: "Book directly for the lowest rates"; "Get a full refund if you cancel within 24 hours of booking*"; and "What you see is what you pay. Professionally managed vacation rentals without the hidden fees." Audit captured 14 accessibility violations across scanned pages, 175 third-party tracker fires, and 21 screenshots with chain-of-custody seals. No wrap evidence was detected.
The sealed PDF contains approximately 15–25 pages of documentation with verified chain-of-custody.
Case theory: ADA Title III / Robles
What you receive
- Sealed PDF report (typical 15–28 pp) with full chain of custody — SHA-256 + RFC 3161 timestamps on every artifact
- Verbatim binding representations with Wayback-anchored class-period bounds
- Full network capture: every tracker fire, sensitive transmission, identity-sync event
- Wrap classification: BROWSEWRAP / CLICKWRAP / SIGN-IN-WRAP verdict + Specht-line alignment
- Per-circuit case-law alignment (LIKELY_UNENFORCEABLE / LIKELY_ENFORCEABLE / JURISDICTIONALLY_DEPENDENT)
- Defendant name + domain — revealed at purchase
✓ Prior-litigation check: clear.
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant on this theory
(CourtListener federal + web search of state courts, checked 2026-08-05).
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 4 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Horrocks v. this defendant LLC; Horrocks v. this defendant LLC
⚠ Note: this defendant has 4 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 4 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Horrocks v. this defendant LLC; Horrocks v. this defendant LLC
⚠ Note: this defendant has 4 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.