Consumer-Law Records

ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment. Price v. Diab shows fee-shifting complexity even after default judgment favors plaintiffs.

FCRA claims against CRAs/furnishers survive dismissal only when specific statutory duties are alleged, as in Minano v. DLJ where most furnisher-liability counts were dismissed for lacking a private right of action or insufficient pleading; disclosure-based claims like Askins v. CRST show courts will sustain bare statutory-violation theories. Experian faces repeated individual FCRA filings, suggesting routine but fact-sensitive litigation rather than uniform outcomes.

Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading stage on tracking-tech theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim and Nuance's biometric claim were dismissed on statutory exemptions. Outcome likely hinges on specific technology (chat/session replay) and whether Ulta fits any statutory carve-out.

ADA Title III accessibility suits split on outcome — Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment; S.D. Fla. is a high-volume forum for these single-plaintiff tester suits.

Comparable rulings split: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal where plaintiff couldn't prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA claims but vacated injunctive relief for remedy analysis gaps. SVT Designs is a small Coral Gables firm, suggesting a single-plaintiff or small-group web-accessibility suit rather than a true class action.