Consumer-Law Records

ADA Title III accessibility suits split sharply on outcome: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs failed to prove reasonable modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment. Single-dealership suits like this hinge heavily on specific barrier proof and standing.

Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital shows FCRA furnisher claims often dismissed for lack of private right of action or thin pleading, while Askins shows bare disclosure violations can survive standing challenges. Outcomes for Credit One likely split by claim type.

FCRA furnisher claims are frequently narrowed or dismissed (Minano v. DLJ) for lacking private right of action, while disclosure-based claims can survive (Askins v. CRST). TransUnion faces recurring FCRA suits and has settled comparable EDPA class actions before.

Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived MTD on tracking/biometric claims, while Tower Health, Nuance, and Walker were dismissed on similar privacy theories. SOLKOA's small size and lack of prior litigation history make outcome hard to predict from these mixed signals.

Comparable rulings split roughly evenly: tracking-tech privacy claims survived in Bayhealth (confidentiality) and Gunnar Optiks (BIPA), but were dismissed in Tower Health (Meta Pixel) and Nuance (GLBA exemption). Outcome hinges heavily on specific tracking technology and state law used, unresolved at this stage.

ADA web/accessibility claims split in comparables: Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to show effective modifications, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations and Price v. Diab upheld relief via default judgment. Outcome hinges heavily on specificity of alleged barriers and remediation feasibility.

ADA accessibility rulings are split: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations while Lowell v. Lyft and Billesdon affirmed dismissal, showing courts require plaintiffs to prove effective, reasonable barriers existed. M.D. Fla. has no clear pattern shown here.

Privacy/wiretap claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on factual disputes, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory exemptions or pleading defects. Ericsson's role as infrastructure provider (not direct consumer-facing) raises standing/duty questions similar to Integris Health's dismissed vicarious claims.

No comparable rulings directly address consumer false-advertising claims against a supply company; Cetorelli shows deceptive-practices claims can succeed with treble damages, while Guthrie shows class cert often fails on individualized reliance issues.