Category: Technology

Quantifying Cryptocurrency Claims in Bankruptcy: Does the Dollar Still Reign Supreme?

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming.  Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors.  The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms.  These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.  Some of these funds allegedly were commingled or rehypothecated, leaving customer accounts severely underfunded when liquidity crunches arose at the various entities.  The total amount of such claims is estimated to be in the billions — that is, if these claims ultimately are measured in United States Dollars (“USD”).

Crypto-watchers and bankruptcy lawyers alike have speculated how customer claims based on digital assets such as cryptocurrencies should be valued and measured under bankruptcy law.  Given the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, this determination may have a significant effect on recoveries, as well as the viability of the “payment-in-kind” distribution mechanics proposed in Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi.  A number of creditors appearing pro se in these proceedings have expressed a desire to keep their mix of cryptocurrencies through these proposed “in-kind” distributions.

However, a crypto-centric approach to valuing claims and making distributions raises a number of issues for consideration.  For example, measuring customer claims in cryptocurrency and making “in-kind” distributions of these assets could lead to creditors within the same class receiving recoveries of disparate USD value as the result of the fluctuation in cryptocurrency prices. Moreover, as has been discussed in the Celsius proceedings, the administrative burden associated with maintaining, accounting for, and distributing a wide variety of cryptocurrencies as part of a recovery scheme would likely prove complex.  Equity holders also might challenge the confirmability of a plan where valuations and recoveries are based on cryptocurrency rather than USD, as a dramatic rise in cryptocurrency values could return some value to equity.

Like most issues at the intersection of insolvency and cryptocurrency, there is little precedent to guide creditors through the uncertainties, but a recent dispute in the Celsius bankruptcy proceedings as to whether a debtor is required to schedule claims in USD, or whether cryptocurrency claims can be scheduled “in-kind,” may serve as a preview of things to come.

I.          General Background

Celsius Network (“Celsius” and, together with its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, the “Debtors”), self-described as one of the “largest and most sophisticated” cryptocurrency-based finance platforms and lenders that claimed over 1.7 million users worldwide,1 filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 13, 2022.2  On October 5, 2022, the Debtors filed their schedules of assets and liabilities (“Schedules”).  Each Debtor’s schedule of unsecured creditors’ claims (Schedule E/F) lists the claims of the Debtors’ customers by the number of various forms of cryptocurrency coins and account types, rather than in USD.3

On October 25, 2022, a group of beneficial holders, investment advisors, and managers of beneficial holders (collectively, the “Series B Preferred Holders”) of the Series B Preferred Shares issued by debtor Celsius Network Limited filed a motion seeking entry of an order directing the Debtors to amend their Schedules to reflect customer claims valued in USD, in addition to cryptocurrency coin counts.4

II.         Arguments

a.         Series B Preferred Holders

Broadly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a),5 the Series B Preferred Holders sought to have the Debtors amend their Schedule E/F to “dollarize” creditors’ claims, i.e., value customer claims in their dollar value as of the petition date.  As filed, the Series B Preferred Holders asserted that the Debtors’ schedules were “improper, misleading, and fail[ed] to comply” with the Bankruptcy Rules “because they schedule[d] customer claims in cryptocurrency coin counts, rather than in lawful currency of the United States as of the Petition Date.”6  The Series B Preferred Holders asserted that such amended schedules are essential to the Debtors’ ability to structure, solicit, and confirm a plan of reorganization under the requirements of Section 1129, including whether “(i) claims are impaired or unimpaired, (ii) holders of similarly situated claims are receiving the same treatment, and (iii) the plan meets the requirements of the ‘absolute priority rule.’”7  In support of their arguments that USD valuation of a customer’s claim should be required, the Series B Preferred Holders relied on provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules, Bankruptcy Code, and Official Forms.  The Series B Preferred Holders stressed that the motion “takes no position regarding the form of distribution customers” should receive under the Debtors’ plan, but rather that the Debtors must “add the [USD] amount of each customer claim in Schedules E/F to the cryptocurrency coin counts.”8

The Series B Preferred Holders also asserted that the requirement to denominate claims in USD is consistent with Section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that when a debtor or party-in-interest objects to a claim, the court determines the amount of the claim in USD as of the debtor’s petition date.

b.         Debtors’ Response

The Debtors had previously indicated that they were not seeking to dollarize its customers’ claims; rather, the Debtors represented that they intend to return cryptocurrency assets to its customers “in kind.”9  The Debtors stated that they interpreted Bankruptcy Rule 9009(a)(1)-(2) and General Order M-386, dated November 24, 2009 (the “General Order M-386”) to allow the Debtors to remove the dollar symbol when scheduling claims regarding cryptocurrency coin counts.10  This approach, the Debtors argue, lessens confusion for its customer case and decreases administrative expense for the estate.11

Further, the Debtors argued that the Series B Preferred Holders’ reliance on Section 502(b) was misplaced because the application of such section is inapplicable at this stage of the proceedings where no claims objection has taken place.12

The Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) agreed with the Debtors’ approach, stating that it “makes sense” for account holders to validate their scheduled claims by cryptocurrency type and that it wished to be consulted on the petition date prices used by the Debtors if they filed an amendment to the schedules.13

III.        Analysis

a.         Bankruptcy Code & Rules & Forms

Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b)(1) requires that a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities must be “prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms.”14  The relevant official form that a debtor must use to prepare its schedule of assets and liabilities is Official Form 206, which contains a USD symbol to denote the amount of liabilities that a debtor must list.15  Specifically, Official Form 206 provides:

As seen above, Official Form 206 does “hardwire” a dollar sign (“$”) into the boxes provided for claim amounts.  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 states that the official forms are to “be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided in the rules, [or] in a particular Official Form.”16  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 permits “certain minor changes not affecting wording or the order of presenting information,” including “expand[ing] the prescribed areas for responses in order to permit complete responses” and “delet[ing] space not needed for responses.”17  Lastly, General Order M-386 permits “such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”18 The introduction to General Order M-386 states that standard forms were adopted to “expedite court review and entry of such orders” and that courts will expect use of the standard forms “with only such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”19

b.         Section 502(b)

Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b) provides that if there is an objection to a claim, the court “shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the [petition] date . . . .”20  This “prevents the value of a claim from fluctuating by setting the claim as of the petition date and converting it to the United States dollars.”21  Acknowledging the “novel phenomenon” of dollarizing claims in cryptocurrency, the Series B Preferred Holders analogize this to cases where courts have required claims asserted in or based on in foreign currency or amounts of gold should be valued in USD.  However, these cases were decided in the context of a claims objection. The Celsius Debtors argued that these cases have limited utility in the context of a motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a).22

IV.        The Court’s Order

Ahead of the hearing regarding the motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules, the Debtors and the Series B Preferred Holders were able to consensually resolve the motion and filed a revised proposed order prior to the hearing on the motions on November 15.23  The Debtors agreed to amend their schedules by filing a conversion table within three days of the entry of the order, in consultation with the UCC and Series B Preferred Holders, that reflects the Debtors’ view of the rate of conversion of all cryptocurrencies listed in the Debtors’ schedules to USD as of the petition date.  The idea is that the conversion table could be used by customers as a reference for calculating the USD value of their claim, to the extent needed for filing a proof of claim.  The conversion table is not binding – the order preserves the rights of all parties to contest the conversion rates and does not require a party-in-interest to file an objection that is not stated in USD “solely on the basis that such claims should be reflected in [USD].”24  The order also requires the Debtors to file updated schedules “dollarizing” its account holders’ cryptocurrency holdings to the extent required by any future court order or judicial determination.

On November 17, 2022, the court entered the revised proposed order.25

V.         Cash Is Still King?

Other bankruptcy courts have taken similar approaches as the Celsius court in this issue.  An earlier cryptocurrency case, In re Cred Inc., the debtors did not schedule cryptocurrency claims in USD, but included a conversion table in their filed schedules, which set forth a conversion rate to USD as of the petition date.26  Debtors in other cases, such as Voyager Digital, scheduled the amounts of their customer claims as “undetermined” and listed them in Schedule F in cryptocurrency.27  BlockFi, which filed for bankruptcy on November 28, 2022, already has filed a proposed plan that would distribute its cryptocurrencies to its customers in–kind in exchange for their claims against the BlockFi debtors.28  To date, neither BlockFi nor FTX have filed their schedules, and it remains to be seen whether they will follow the pattern established in Celsius and Voyager.

For creditors and equity holders, whether claims are measured in USD or the applicable cryptocurrency is only the beginning of what will likely be a long and contentious road to recovery.  It remains to be seen whether any of these debtors will be able to confirm a viable restructuring plan that relies on any sort of “in-kind” distribution of cryptocurrencies.  Further issues are likely to arise in the claims resolution process even further down the road as claimants and liquidation trustees (or plan administrators) wrestle with how to value claims based on such a volatile asset, subject to ever-increasing regulatory scrutiny.  However, for the time being, the bankruptcy process continues to run on USD.

FOOTNOTES

1 Declaration of Alex Mashinsky, CEO of the Debtors ¶¶ 1, 9, 20, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 23].

2 Id. at ¶ 131.

3 Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 974]; see also Schedule E/F, Case No. 22-10967 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10970 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10968 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10965 [Docket No. 6]; Case No. 22-10966 [Docket No. 7]; Case No. 22-10964 [Docket No. 974]; Case No. 22-10969 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22- 10971 [Docket No. 5].

4 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1183].

5 “On motion of a party in interest, after notice and a hearing, the court may order any . . . schedule . . . to be amended and the clerk shall give notice of the amendment to entities designated by the court.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a).

6 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules ¶ 1.

7 Id. ¶ 3 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(2)-(4), 1129(a)(1), 1129(b)).

8 Series B Preferred Holders’ Reply ¶ 10, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1334].

9 See 8/16/22 Hr’g Tr. at 35:5-7 (“The company is not seeking to dollarize claims on the petition date and give people back a recovery in fiat.”); id. at 42:11-16 (“[The UCC is] pleased that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . an in-kind recovery is absolutely critical.”).

10 General Order M-386 is a resolution of the Board of Judges for the Southern District of New York, which provides for “a standard form for orders to establish deadlines for the filing of proofs of claim . . . in chapter 11 cases” to “thereby expedite court review and entry of such orders.”

11 Debtors’ Objection to Series B Preferred Holders’ Motion ¶ 9, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1304].

12 Id. ¶ 12 (citing In re Mohr, 425 B.R. 457, 464 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio)).

13 Id. at 42:12-16 (“We are pleased to hear that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . receiving an in-kind recover is 16 absolutely critical.”); UCC Statement and Reservation of Rights ¶ 6, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1303].

14 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(1).

15 See Official Form 206, Part 2, Line 4 (using the USD sign into Form 206 for scheduling the debtor’s liabilities).

16 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9009(a).

17 Id.

18 General Order M-386 ¶ 9.

19 General Order M-386 ¶ 2 (unnumbered, preliminary statement).

20 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).

21 In re Aaura, Inc., No. 06 B 01853, 2006 WL 2568048, at *4, n.5 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2006).

22 In re USGen New Eng., Inc., 429 B.R. 437, 492 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (using the exchange rate in effect on the petition date, in the context of a claims objection, to convert the claim to USD), aff’d sub nom. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. USGen New Eng., Inc., 458 B.R. 195 (D. Md. 2011); Aaura, 2006 WL 2568048, at *5 (“Section 502(b) converts Aaura’s obligation to repay the obligation in gold into a claim against the estate in dollars, but it makes this transformation only as of the petition date, not retroactive to the date on which Aaura first became liable.”); Matter of Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 608 n.19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (noting Section 502(b) refers to the petition date as “the appropriate date for conversion of foreign currency claims”), aff’d sub nom. In re Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); ABC Dev. Learning Ctrs. (USA), Inc. v. RCS Capital Dev., LLC (In re RCS Capital Dev., LLC), No. AZ-12-1381-JuTaAh, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4666, at *38-39 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 16, 2013) (same).

23 Notice of Proposed Order, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1342].

24 Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.

25 Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1099 Directing the Debtors to Amend Their Schedules in Certain Circumstances, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1387].

26 Schedules at 12, In re Cred Inc., Case No. 20-128336 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del. 2021) [ECF No. 443].

27 Schedules, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., Case No. 22-10943 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2022) [ECF No. 311].

28 Joint Plan of Reorganization § IV.B.1.a, In re BlockFi Inc., Case No. 19361 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. 2022) [ECF No. 22].

Article By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

How Many Websites Now Have Cookie Banners?

A “cookie banner” refers to a pop-up notice on a website that discusses the site’s use of cookies. There is little standardization concerning how cookie banners are deployed. For example, websites can position them in different places on the screen (e.g., across the top of the screen, across the bottom of the screen, in a corner of the screen, or centered on the screen). Cookie banners also utilize different language to describe what cookies are and use different terms to describe options consumers may have in relation to the deployment of cookies. Some cookie banners require that a consumer interact with the banner (e.g., accept, cancel, or click out of) before the consumer can visit a website; other cookie banners are designed to disappear from view after several seconds.

As of October 2022, 45% of Fortune 500 websites were utilizing a cookie banner.[1] That represents an 11-point increase since 2021.[2]

[1] Greenberg Traurig LLP reviewed the publicly available privacy notices and practices of 555 companies (the Survey Population). The Survey Population comprises companies that had been ranked within the Fortune 500 at some point in the past five years as well as additional companies selected from industries that are underrepresented in the Fortune 500. While the Survey Population does not fully match the current Fortune 500 as a result of industry consolidation and shifts in company capitalization, we believe that the aggregate statistics rendered from the Survey Population are representative of mature companies. Greenberg Traurig’s latest survey was conducted between September and October 2022.

[2] Greenberg Traurig LLP conducted a survey in December 2020 which showed that 34.2% of websites had cookie banners.

Article By David A. Zetoony of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more communications, media, and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLAR CASE:? TikTok Hit in MASSIVE CIPA Suit Over Its Business Model of Profiting from Advertising by Collecting and Monetizing User Data

Data privacy lawsuits are EXPLODING and one of our country’s most popular mobile app — TikTok’s privacy issues keep piling up.

Following its recent $92 million class-action data privacy settlement for its alleged violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), TikTok is now facing a CIPA and Federal Wire Tap class action for collecting users’ data via its in-app browser without Plaintiff and class member’s consent.

The complaint alleges “[n]owhere in [Tik Tok’s] Terms of Service or the privacy policies is it disclosed that Defendants compel their users to use an in-app browser that installs JavaScipt code into the external websites that users visit from the TikTok app which then provides TikTok with a complete record of every keystroke, every tap on any button, link, image or other component on any website, and details about the elements the users clicked. “

Despite being a free app, TikTok makes billions in revenue by collecting users’ data without their consent.

“The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.”

While we’ve discussed before, many companies do collect data for legitimate purposes with consent. However this new complaint alleges a very specific type of data collection practice without the TikTok user’s OR the third party website operator’s consent.

TikTok allegedly relies on selling digital advertising spots for income and the algorithm used to determine what advertisements to display on a user’s home page, utilizes tracking software to understand a users’ interest and habits. In order to drive this business, TikTok presents users with links to third-party websites in TikTok’s in-app browser without a user  (or the third party website operator) knowing this is occurring via TikTok’s in-app browser. The user’s keystrokes is simultaneously being intercepted and recorded.

“Specifically, when a user attempts to access a website, by clicking a link while using the TikTok app, the website does not open via the default browser.  Instead, unbeknownst to the user, the link is opened inside the TikTok app, in [Tik Tok’s] in-app browser.  Thus, the user views the third-party website without leaving the TikTok app. “

The Tik-Tok in-app browser does not just track purchase information, it allegedly tracks detailed private and sensitive information – including information about  a person’s physical and mental health.

For example, health providers and pharmacies, such as Planned Parenthood, have a digital presence on TikTok, with videos that appear on users’ feeds.

Once a user clicks on this link, they are directed to Planned Parenthood’s main webpage via TikTok’s in-app browser. While the user is assured that his or her information is “privacy and anonymous,” TikTok is allegedly intercepting it and monetizing it to send targeted advertisements to the user – without the user’s or Planned Parenthood’s consent.

The complaint not only details out the global privacy concerns regarding TikTok’s privacy practices (including FTC investigations, outright ban preventing U.S. military from using it, TikTok’s BIPA lawsuit, and an uptick in privacy advocate concerns) it also specifically calls out the concerns around collecting reproductive health information after the demise of Roe v. Wade this year:

“TikTok’s acquisition of this sensitive information is especially concerning given the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent criminalization of abortion in several states.  Almost immediately after the precedent-overturning decision was issued, anxieties arose regarding data privacy in the context of commonly used period and ovulation tracking apps.  The potential of governments to acquire digital data to support prosecution cases for abortions was quickly flagged as a well-founded concern.”

Esh. The allegations are alarming and the 76 page complaint can be read here: TikTok.

In any event, the class is alleged as:

“Nationwide Class: All natural persons in the United State whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser.

California Subclass: All natural persons residing in California whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser.”

The complaint alleges California law applies to all class members – like the Meta CIPA complaint we will have to wait and see how a nationwide class can be brought related to a CA statute.

On the CIPA claim, the Plaintiff – Austin Recht – seeks an unspecific amount of damages for the class but the demand is $5,000 per violation or 3x the amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff and the class in an amount to be proven at trial.

We’ll obviously continue to keep an eye out on this.

Article By Puja J. Amin of Troutman Firm

For more communications and media legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Troutman Firm

Following the Recent Regulatory Trends, NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Limit Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

Under the General Counsel’s proposed framework, an employer can avoid a violation of the Act if it can demonstrate that its business needs require the electronic monitoring and management practices and the practices “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights.  Not only must the employer be able to make this showing, it must also demonstrate that it provided the employees advance notice of the technology used, the reason for its use, and how it uses the information obtained.  An employer is relieved of this obligation, according to the General Counsel, only if it can show “special circumstances” justifying “covert use” of the technology.

In GC 23-02, the General Counsel signaled to NLRB Regions that they should scrutinize a broad range of “automated management” and “algorithmic management” technologies, defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces, relying on data collection and surveillance of workers to enable automated or semi-automated decision-making.”  Technologies subject to this scrutiny include those used during working time, such as wearable devices, security cameras, and radio-frequency identification badges that record workers’ conversations and track the movements of employees, GPS tracking devices and cameras that keep track of the productivity and location of employees who are out on the road, and computer software that takes screenshots, webcam photos, or audio recordings.  Also subject to scrutiny are technologies employers may use to track employees while they are off duty, such as employer-issued phones and wearable devices, and applications installed on employees’ personal devices.  Finally, the General Counsel noted that an employer that uses such technologies to hire employees, such as online cognitive assessments and reviews of social media, “pry into job applicants’ private lives.”  Thus, these pre-hire practices may also violate of the Act.  Technologies such as resume readers and other automated selection tools used during hiring and promotion may also be subject to GC 23-02.

GC 23-02 follows the wave of recent federal guidance from the White House, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and local laws that attempt to define, regulate, and monitor the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making capacities.  Like these regulations and guidance, GC 23-02 raises more questions than it answers.  For example, GC 23-02 does not identify the standards for determining whether business needs “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights, or what constitutes “special circumstances” that an employer must show to avoid scrutiny under the Act.

While GC 23-02 sets forth the General Counsel’s proposal and thus is not legally binding, it does signal that there will likely be disputes in the future over artificial intelligence in the employment context.

Article By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Neresa A. De Biasi, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Attorney Mindfulness When Addressing Emails and Texts: ABA Formal Opinion Provides Ethical Guidance to Lawyers on Electronic Communications

In their roles as advisors, advocates, counselors, negotiators, and client representatives, lawyers communicate extensively though electronic means, particularly email and increasingly text messages. However, the fact that use of these electronic communication tools is commonplace in legal practice doesn’t mean that attorneys shouldn’t exercise caution when crafting their communications. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published a formal opinion this month that advises lawyers to refrain generally from including their clients on emails and texts sent to opposing counsel.

ABA Formal Opinion 503 focuses on ABA Model Rule 4.2, often referred to as the “no-contact” rule. Under this model rule, a lawyer who is representing a client may not communicate about the subject of the representation with a represented person absent the consent of that person’s lawyer unless the law or court order authorizes such as communication. Most states’ codes of professional legal ethics draw heavily upon the ABA Model Rules, so many states have similar “no-contact” rules for lawyers.

The new formal opinion states that lawyers would not be deemed to violate ABA Model Rule 4.2 if they send a “reply all” response to a group email or text sent by an opposing counsel, even if that communication includes the opposing counsel’s client. The opinion states that, “[a]bsent special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on emails or other forms of electronic communication to counsel representing another person in the matter impliedly consent to a ‘reply all’ response from the receiving counsel,” the opinion said. “Accordingly, the reply all communication would not violate Model Rule 4.2.”

As a practical matter, Formal Opinion 503 provides a number of options to lawyers who wish to avoid creating an implied presumption of consent to such “reply all” communications from opposing counsel to their clients. These options include:

  • forwarding the electronic communication separately to the client without including opposing counsel as an addressee,
  • informing receiving counsel expressly and in advance that including the client on the electronic communication does not constitute a consent to a “reply all” response, or
  • sending the communication through other means (such as a mailed hard copy letter) where different norms are in place regarding responding to all addressees.

The full text of ABA Formal Opinion 503 is available here.

Article By Electronic Discovery at K&L Gates

For more law office management legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Five Data Quality Nightmares That Haunt Marketers and How Avoid Them

In this spooky season of vampires, witches and scary clowns, we’d like to add one more to the mix – data quality nightmares – which can be more frightful than a marathon of Freddy Kreuger movies to some of us.

We need data about our clients and prospects in order to create strategic programs that can lead to new business and increased visibility, but maintaining that data on an ongoing basis can quickly turn into a nightmare without the right resources.

Having good quality data is important for success in so many areas of your organization, including:

  • Communicating effectively with core constituencies
  • Successfully planning and executing events
  • Segmenting your target markets, clients or customers
  • Providing superior customer service
  • Understanding the needs of clients or customers
  • Effectively developing new business
  • Improving delivery and reducing costs of postal mailings

The reality is that your data will never be perfect, but there are ways you can address and improve it. The longer you wait to improve your data management, the scarier it will become. Here are some of the most common data quality nightmares we see and how to avoid them:

Data Quality Nightmare 1: Duplicate data

Is your CRM a graveyard for thousands of duplicate company and individual contacts? Data comes from all directions, so it’s important to ensure that data isn’t being duplicated. Dupes make it difficult to coordinate efforts and activities. Duplicate data occurs when customer information appears more than once in the database, or multiple variations of the same individual appear.

Secondly, duplicate data can damage your brand image. It is unlikely that a contact who receives the same information twice will be happy about it. This is an easy way to frustrate customers and prospects and can make your business appear disorganized.

Data Quality Nightmare 2: Missing or incomplete data

Are your contact details ‘ghosting you’? Without good data you can’t target or segment, and your communications and invitations won’t reach the right audiences.

Similar to inaccurate data, incomplete data can also have a negative impact on your business performance.

One way that organizations can help control this data quality nightmare, is by making certain form fields a required entry. That way, data entries will be more consistent and complete.

Data Quality Nightmare 3: Incorrect or inconsistent data

Does incorrect or inconsistent data give you nightmares? Bad CRM data leads to missed opportunities for new customers, and it could create issues for your sales cycle. There is almost no point in engaging with contacts in your database if the information is incorrect.

There are multiple ways to encourage good data habits, depending on your system and method of contact entry. If your firm relies on manual data entry, implement a firmwide Data Standards Guide to inform users how data should be entered (e.g., does your firm spell out or abbreviate job titles?). It can also be helpful to use system validation rules wherever possible to require certain information in new records such as last name, city and email address to ensure your contacts are relevant.

Data Quality Nightmare 4: Too much data

Are you in the ‘zombie zone’ trying blindly to figure out what to do with too much data and/or disparate data from disconnected systems?

Having too much data can be overwhelming – and unnecessary. It’s important to set parameters on what information you truly need about your clients and prospects, and then maintain only that information going forward. This will streamline the process and make everyone’s jobs easier by avoiding data quality nightmares.

Data Quality Nightmare 5: Lack of data quality resources

Does your team run screaming from data quality projects leaving you with a data disaster?

To encourage ongoing system adoption and utilization, data quality and maintenance must be top priorities. Resources must be dedicated – including time, money and people. Processes and procedures need to be put in place to maintain ongoing quality. Most importantly, training and communication are essential to ensure that end users don’t create unnecessary duplicates or introduce more bad data into the system.

Data Quality Doesn’t Have to Be Scary

While it’s easy to become scared by nightmare data, it’s important to put it in perspective. Focus on discreet data and projects that yield real ROI such as:

  • Start with your most relevant records like current clients. Begin cleaning your top 100 to 500 along with associated key contacts.
  • Review frequently used lists to ensure your communications and invitations are reaching the right recipients.
  • Vet bounced emails after each campaign, or better yet, regularly run lists through an automated data process to identify bad emails before a campaign to ensure that information actually reaches your targets in a timely manner.
  • Tackle time-sensitive one-off projects. For instance, an upcoming event often provides a good opportunity to get users engaged in cleanup efforts, particularly if the event is important to them.

It’s also important to remember that because data degrades so rapidly, data cleaning can’t be a one-time initiative. Once your team begins regularly maintaining your data, the cleanup will get easier over time. And remember, because data cleaning never really ends, the good news is that this means you have forever to get better at it.

Article By Christina R. Fritsch JD of CLIENTSFirst Consulting

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 CLIENTSFirst Consulting

Biden Administration Expands Public-Private Cybersecurity Partnership to Chemical Sector

On October 26, 2022, the Biden Administration announced that it is expanding the Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Cybersecurity Initiative to the chemical sector. The White House’s fact sheet states that the majority of chemical companies are privately owned, so a collaborative approach is needed between the private sector and government. According to the fact sheet, “[t]he nation’s leading chemical companies and the government’s lead agency for the chemical sector — the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) — have agreed on a plan to promote a higher standard of cybersecurity across the sector, including capabilities that enable visibility and threat detection for industrial control systems.”

The fact sheet states that the Chemical Action Plan will serve as a roadmap to guide the sector’s assessment of their current cybersecurity practices over the next 100 days, building on the lessons learned and best practices of the previously launched action plans for the electric, pipeline, and water sectors to meet the needs for this sector. The Chemical Action Plan will:

  • Focus on high-risk chemical facilities that present significant chemical release hazards with the ultimate goal of supporting enhanced ICS cybersecurity across the entire chemical sector;
  • Drive information sharing and analytical coordination between the federal government and the chemical sector;
  • Foster collaboration with the sector owners and operators to facilitate and encourage the deployment of appropriate technologies based on each chemical facility’s own risk assessment and cybersecurity posture. The federal government will not select, endorse, or recommend any specific technology or provider; and
  • Support the continuity of chemical production critical to the national and economic security of the United States. The chemical sector produces and manufactures chemicals that are used directly or as building blocks in the everyday lives of Americans, from fertilizers and disinfectants to personal care products and energy sources, among others.

The ICS Cybersecurity Initiative emphasizes that cybersecurity continues to be a top priority for the Administration.

For more Cybersecurity Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Buying, Selling, and Investing in Telehealth Companies: Navigating Structural and Compliance Issues

A multi-part series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of Telemedicine mergers and acquisitions, and financing transactions

Investors in the telehealth space and buyers and sellers of telehealth companies need to account for a set of health regulatory considerations that are unique to deals in this sector. As all parties to potential telehealth transactions analyze their long term role in the telehealth marketplace, two of the central issues to any transaction are compliance and structure – both in terms of structuring the telehealth transaction itself and due diligence issues that arise related to a target’s structure.

The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with strained health care staffing and provider availability, have accelerated the growth of the telehealth, and start-ups and traditional health systems alike are competing for access to patient populations in the telehealth space. However, as we adjust to life with COVID-19 as the norm, the expiration of the federal Public Health Emergency (PHE) looms, and the national economy contracts, we expect that the remainder of 2022 and into 2023 will see consolidation as the telehealth market begins to saturate and the long-term viability of certain platforms are tested. Telehealth companies, health systems, pharma companies and investors are all in potential positions to take advantage of this consolidation in a ripening M&A sector (while startups in the telehealth space continue to seek venture and institutional capital).

This is the first post in a series highlighting the unique health regulatory aspects of telehealth transactions. Future installments of this series are expected to cover licensure and regulatory approvals, compliance / clinical delivery models, and future market developments.

Telehealth Transaction Structure Considerations

The structure of any given telehealth transaction will largely depend on the business of the telehealth organization at play, but also will depend on the acquirer / investor. Regardless of whether a party is buying, selling or investing in a telehealth company, structuring the transaction appropriately will be important for all parties involved. While a standard stock purchase, asset purchase or merger may make sense for many of these transactions, we have also seen a proliferation of, affiliation arrangements, joint ventures (JV), alliances and partnerships.  These varieties of affiliation transactions can be a good choice for health systems that are not necessarily looking to manage or develop an existing platform, but instead are looking to leverage their patient populations and resources to partner with an existing technology platform. An affiliation or JV is more popular for telehealth companies operating purely as a technology platform (with no core business involving clinical services being provided). For parties in the traditional healthcare provider sector that provide clinical services, an affiliation or JV, which is easier to unwind or terminate than a traditional M&A transaction, can allow the parties to “test the waters” in a new, combined business venture. The affiliation or JV can take a variety of forms, including technology licensing agreements; the creation of a new entity to house the telehealth mission, which then has contractual arrangements with the both the JV parties; and exclusivity arrangements relating to use of the technology and access to patient populations.

While an affiliation or JV offers flexibility, can minimize the need for a large upfront investment, and can be an attractive alternative to a more permanent purchase or sale, there can be increased regulatory risk. Entrepreneurs, investors, and providers considering any such arrangement should bear in mind that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and proliferation of telehealth, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) has expressed a heightened interest in investigating so called “telefraud” and recently issued a special fraud alert regarding suspect arrangements, discussed in this prior post. Further, the OIG’s guidance on contractual joint ventures that would run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) should be front of mind and parties should strive to structure any affiliation or JV in a manner that meets or approximates an AKS safe harbor.

Target Telehealth Company Structure Compliance

Where telehealth companies are providing clinical services, and are not purely technology platforms, structuring and transaction diligence should focus on whether the target is operating in compliance with corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) laws. The CPOM doctrine is intended to maintain the independence of physician decision-making and reduce a “profits over people” mentality, and prevent physician employment by a lay-owned corporation unless an exception applies. Most states that have adopted CPOM impose similar restrictions on other types of clinical professionals, such as nurses, physical therapists, social workers, and psychologists. Telehealth companies often attempt to utilize a so-called “friendly PC” structure to comply with CPOM, whereby an investor-owned management services organization (“MSO”) affiliates with a physician-owned professional corporation (or other type of professional entity) (a “PC”) through a series of contractual agreements that foster a close working relationship between the MSO, PC, and PC owner and whereby the MSO provides management services, and sometimes start-up financing. The overall arrangement is intended to allow the MSO to handle the management side of the PC’s operations without impeding the professional judgment of the PC or the medical practice of its physicians and the PC owner.

CPOM Compliance Considerations and Diligence for Telehealth Companies

A sophisticated buyer will want to confirm that the target’s friendly PC structure is not only formally established, but is also operationalized properly and in a manner that minimizes fraud and abuse risk. If CPOM compliance gaps are identified in diligence this may, at worst, tank the deal and, at best, cause unexpected delays in the transaction timeline, as restructuring may be required or advisable. The buyer may also request additional deal concessions, such as a purchase price reduction and special indemnification coverage (with potentially a higher liability limit and an escrow as security). Accordingly, a telehealth company anticipating a sale or fund raise would be well served to engage in a self-audit to identify any CPOM compliance issues and undertake necessary corrective actions prior to the commencement of a transaction process.

Below are nine key questions with respect to CPOM compliance and related fraud and abuse issues that a buyer/investor in a telehealth transaction should examine carefully (and that the target should be prepared to answer):

  1. Does target have a PC that is properly incorporated or foreign qualified in all states where clinical services are provided (based on the location of the patient)?
  2. Does the PC owner (and any directors and officers of the PC, to the extent different from the PC owner) have a medical license in all states where the PC conducts business (to the extent in-state licensure is required)? To the extent the PC has multiple physician owners and directors/officers, are all such individuals licensed as required under applicable state law?
  3. Does the PC(s) have its own federal employer identification number, bank account (including double lockbox arrangement if enrolled in federal healthcare programs), and Medicare/Medicaid enrollments?
  4. Does the PC owner exercise meaningful oversight and control over the governance and clinical activities of the PC? Does the PC owner have background and expertise relevant to the business (e.g., a cardiologist would not have appropriate experience to be the PC owner of a PC that provides telemental health services)?
  5. Are the physicians and other professionals providing clinical services for the business employed or contracted through a PC (rather than the MSO)? Employment or independent contractor agreements should be reviewed, as well as W-2s, and payroll accounts.
  6. Is the PC properly contracted with customers (to the extent services are provided on a B2B basis) and payors?
  7. Do the contractual agreements between the MSO and PC respect the independent clinical judgment of the PC owner and PC physicians and otherwise comply with state CPOM laws.
  8. Do the financial arrangements between the MSO, PC, and PC owner comply with AKS, the federal Stark Law, and corollary state laws and fee-splitting prohibitions, to the extent applicable?
  9. Is the PC owner or any other physician performing clinical services for the PC an equity holder in the MSO? If so, are these equity interests tied to volume/value of referrals to the PC or MSO (i.e., if the MSO provides ancillary services such as lab or prescription drugs) or could equity interests be construed as an improper incentive to generate healthcare business (e.g., warrants that can only be exercised upon attainment of certain volume)?

Telehealth companies considering a sale or financing transaction, and potential buyers and investors, would be well served to spend time on the front end of a potential transaction assessing the above issues to determine potential risk areas that could impact deal terms or necessitate any friendly PC structuring.

Article By Hannah E. Zaitlin, Mitchell D. Lindstrom, David S. Sanders, and Natasha Allen of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

The Do’s and Don’ts of Data Cleaning – Don’t Drown in Bad Data

Bad CRM data can compound exponentially, impacting marketing and business development. It’s essential to understand the scope of  your data problems and follow a plan for regular data cleaning.  

Have you ever heard the saying, “No man ever steps into the same river twice”? Because a river’s water is constantly flowing and changing, the water you step in today will be different from yesterday. The same is true for the data in your CRM system: people are constantly changing roles, relocating, retiring; companies are opening, closing, moving and merging.

On top of that, new data isn’t always entered correctly. As a result, a database with clean, correct information today will not necessarily be accurate tomorrow. Over time, this bad data can compound exponentially, resulting in ineffective marketing, events and communication campaigns because as your data degrades, you reach fewer members of your target audience.

For professional services firms, poor data quality in your CRM system can also translate into a decline in system adoption. Once your professionals see bad data, they won’t trust the system as a whole and ultimately may outright refuse to use it. This is why we stress the importance of ongoing data cleaning.

Data Cleaning Do’s and Don’ts

Simply put, data cleaning involves identifying incorrect, incomplete and/or dated data in your systems and correcting and enhancing it. If you have a large database with thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of records, the data quality process can seem daunting and overwhelming.

While there’s no magic bullet or quick fix for poor data quality, ignoring data problems until there’s a crisis is not a strategy. Good data quality requires ongoing effort that never ends. The good news is that this means you have forever to get better at it. So, start now. Begin by assessing the scope of your data quality issues. Then, because it’s not always cost-effective or even possible to clean all your data, start by focusing on the highest priority projects.

Identify and Prioritize Your Most Important Data

All contact records are not created equal. For instance, client data is typically more important than non-client data. Additionally, individuals who have recently subscribed to your communications or attended an event are more important than those who last interacted with your firm years ago. Whatever segmenting scenario you select, it’s important to find ways to divide your contact data into manageable pieces because it makes the process more manageable and allows you to better measure progress.

Eliminate Stagnant Records

Related to prioritizing your data, don’t be hesitant about removing records that have been inactive for an extended period. Search your system for contacts that have not been updated for a few years, are not related to or known by any of your professionals, are not clients or alumni, and have not opened a communication or invitation in two to three years. Chances are good these records are not only outdated but also may not be worth the resources it would take to update them. Identify these records and consider removing them from the system. Less mess in your database makes cleanup a bit more manageable.

Your Plan Is Your Life Preserver

Once you’ve prioritized subsets or segments of contacts, identifying and prioritizing your most common data errors can help you decide on the best way to tackle ongoing data cleaning. For example, if you have an important email that needs to be sent to clients, you need to focus on email addresses. Identify records that don’t have an email address, have incorrectly formatted email addresses or have bounced recently.

In addition, if there are contacts you haven’t sent a communication or invitation to for an extended period of time, it’s entirely likely that their email may no longer be valid. It’s important to regularly test emails on your lists because not doing so can cause you to be blacklisted by anti-spam entities or have your account blocked by your eMarketing provider.

Initial Cleaning Cycle

The best place to start your data cleaning cycle is with a contact and list verification and cleansing service such as TrueDQ. This service will evaluate your list data, identify potentially harmful “honeypot” email addresses and even automatically update many of your contacts with current, complete contact information. The data can then also be enhanced with additional missing information, such as industries and locations, to help with targeting and segmenting.

Rinse and Repeat

When one segment or list has been cleaned, move on to the next one – bearing in mind that what’s important on the next list may be different from the last one. For example, maybe you need to send a hard copy postal mailing, so it will be important to ensure the accuracy of physical mailing addresses rather than email addresses.

Bounces and Returns

One of the most common data quality failures at law and other professional services firms is ignoring bounced emails and returned hard copy mailings. Bounces and returns are real-time indicators that can help you keep on top of your data quality. Researching and correcting them is important because sometimes they involve important former clients who could potentially hire the firm again at their new company.

Returned hard mail will often include the forwarding address of the recipient, which should be corrected in your CRM. For emails, use a central email address to collect automatic email replies, since these frequently tell you when a recipient no longer works at an organization.

Ideally, data stewards should regularly review all bounces to take the onus off the professionals. However, it can also be helpful to generate reports on bounced communications and circulate them to professionals or their assistants who may be able to provide updated information – or will at least appreciate knowing which of their contacts have moved on or changed roles.

Finally, if your eMarketing and/or CRM system has a process for automatically isolating bounced records, be sure you have a reciprocal process that automatically reinstates bounced records when the email field is updated.

Prevent Invalid Data

There are multiple ways to encourage good data habits, depending on your system and method of contact entry. If your firm relies on manual data entry, implement a firmwide Data Standards Guide to inform users how data should be entered (e.g., does your firm spell out or abbreviate job titles?). It can also be helpful to use system validation rules wherever possible to require certain information in new records such as last name, city and email address to ensure your contacts are relevant.

Finally, regularly review newly added records for consistency and completeness. This process can reveal issues such as users who may require additional training on contact input best practices. It can also help to catch spam or other potentially dangerous entries that can sometimes flow into your database from online forms that are filled out by bots.

Never, Ever Stop

Just as rivers keep flowing, so does the data in your CRM system – and the data will always need cleaning to ensure that it is fresh. While this may feel like a relentless and burdensome task, never stop – just go with the flow –  because when you’re not regularly cleaning the data, your CRM “river” can become stagnant, and the more polluted it becomes, the longer the eventual cleanup will take.

Article By Christina R. Fritsch JD and Rachel Fields of CLIENTSFirst Consulting

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 CLIENTSFirst Consulting

ADA Compliance for Law Firm Websites in 2022

Legal reasoning involves applying the law to the facts to determine the rights and duties of those involved in a situation. Lawyers frequently take the position that the application of rules should settle disputes and that policies will be considered, if at all, only when there is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the applicability of the rule. The lawyer might take the position that it is always preferable to seek the result that would further the underlying policies, even if that result would be contrary to the clear language of the rules.

But what if no explicit rules currently exist?

That is the issue with website compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Act does not offer specific guidelines to follow; however, websites are expected to be easily accessible to everyone, including those who are disabled. The failure to create an ADA-compliant website could expose an organization to discrimination lawsuits, financial liabilities, and severe damage to its reputation.

What is the ADA?

The ADA compels certain businesses, including banks, hotels, restaurants, public transit, law firms, and others to make accommodations for people with disabilities. According to the National Law Review, the Act is divided into three parts:

  • Title I prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on disability and requires them to provide reasonable accommodation to certain employees under specific circumstances.
  • Title II covers state and local governments.
  • Title III covers “places of public accommodation,” which the ADA does not define, but are generally private businesses or organizations that provide goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations to the public. These places commonly include schools, restaurants, health care providers, social service agencies, law firms, and more.

The ADA is commonly associated with physical locations and the accommodations that certain businesses must make for people with disabilities, which include wheelchair accessibility, reserved parking, and service animals. Companies that fall under ADA Title I and operate 20 or more weeks per year with at least 15 full-time employees, or Title III – those that fall under the category of public accommodation – must be ADA-compliant.

Although physical “brick-and-mortar” locations are nearly always considered places of public accommodation, the debate is ongoing as to whether a business’s website is a place of accommodation. If so, the digital content must be accessible to all users.

A law firm website must be designed so that those who are disabled can access it easily to comply with ADA requirements. While there are no well-defined regulations that describe precisely what an ADA-compliant website should include, businesses that fall under ADA Title I or ADA Title III are required to develop a website that offers “reasonable accessibility” to people with disabilities.

Compliance Tools & Plugins

Because the ADA doesn’t offer specific guidelines for website compliance, many organizations follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG), updated to 2.1 in 2018. While WCAG isn’t a legal requirement, its requirements have been followed in the European Union and other nations since 1999 and still serves as a reference for businesses that want to improve accessibility to their website.

Under WCAG 2.1, website accessibility concerns generally fall into four groups. These include issues that are:

  • Perceivable – issues that affect users’ ability to locate and process the information on a website, e.g., many visually-impaired individuals use screen readers to distinguish between the text and the background to help them navigate online content.
  • Operable – challenges that impair users’ ability to navigate a site, e.g., functions and navigations such as online forms should be accessible via keyboard-only commands, and users who need additional time to complete them should be allowed to do so.
  • Understandable – users should be able to comprehend the information on the site, e.g., error messages that provide an explanation and directions for correcting an error should be offered.
  • Robust – can be interpreted by various devices and platforms according to the varying needs and abilities of users, e.g., the alt text that should pop up to let users know what it is when read by assistive technology when they hover over an image.

Here are more suggestions regarding what to include to help ensure ADA website compliance:

  • “Alt” tags for every media file and map
  • Descriptive HTML tags for online forms
  • Hyperlinks with descriptive anchor text
  • “Skip navigation” links on all website pages
  • Heading tags to organize text
  • Accessible PDF files
  • Subtitles, transcripts, and audio descriptions for videos
  • Accessible fonts for all applications
  • HTML tables with column headers, row IDs, and cell information
  • Captions written in English for audio files
  • Call-to-action buttons with easily accessible names and ARIA labels
  • A website accessibility policy
  • Easy to find contact information

Meeting these guidelines will make a firm’s website more accessible to those with vision or hearing impairments, as well as cognitive, language, or learning disabilities.

Court Rulings Regarding Website ADA Compliance

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the number of accessibility-related lawsuits filed against websites has increased dramatically in recent years. Plaintiffs are basing these lawsuits on two legal theories:

  1. Title IIIs “equal access and general nondiscrimination mandate
  2. A requirement that places of public accommodation must provide auxiliary aids and services as necessary (for no extra charge)

Although neither Title III nor its regulations mention websites and mobile applications, the phase “auxiliary aids and services” includes “accessible electronic and information technology,” which covers websites and mobile apps.

ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed Each Year Graph
Image by Seyfarth via adatitleiii.com

A recent ABA analysis of court filings related to ADA website compliance found:

  • Federal courts across the country were inundated with more than 8,000 website accessibility lawsuits between 2017 and 2020.
  • In 2020, three states – New York, Florida, and California – brought more than 85 percent of all the ADA website compliance lawsuits.
  • Since 2018, website and mobile app accessibility disputes have accounted for approximately 20 percent of all ADA Title III cases initiated in federal courts, which now regularly exceed 10,000 suits each year.

These statistics do not consider a significant number of website and mobile app cases pursued in state courts, cases settled before filing in court, and DOJ enforcement proceedings that are resolved prior to court filing.

Here are some examples of court rulings related to ADA compliance and websites:

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

In June 2107, a Florida court ruled in favor of a blind plaintiff who brought an ADA violation lawsuit against Winn-Dixie. The man claimed that aspects of the supermarket chain’s site weren’t compatible with screen readers, leaving him unable to order his medications online or download rewards cards. The trial court agreed that the website was inaccessible to those with impaired vision and ordered that it be brought into compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

Although Winn-Dixie complied with the court order, in April 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision, finding that Winn-Dixie was not in violation of the ADA because it did not need accessibility aids to conduct business. After that, however, Winn-Dixie posted an accessibility statement on its website that commits to adhere to WCAG 2.0 AA by using testers from the disability community to check the accessibility of their website periodically.

Robles v. Domino’s Pizza

Domino’s Pizza lost a website accessibility lawsuit in 2019 after years of exhaustive litigation when a federal district court in California granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment after it determined that the website was indeed not fully accessible. The court ordered Domino’s to make its website compliant with the WCAG 2.0 to connect customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants.

The court held that the ADA applied to Domino’s website and app because the Act requires places of public accommodation, like Domino’s, to offer auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to blind individuals. Although customers primarily access the Domino’s website and app outside its physical restaurants, the court found that the Act pertains to the services of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation.

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials

In 2017, Victor Andrews, who is blind, filed a lawsuit against Blick Art Materials for website inaccessibility. Andrews alleged that because Blick’s website was inaccessible, he could not navigate and purchase items on the defendant’s website independently. When Blick made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Judge Jack Weisenstein denied it and made this statement:

Today, internet technology enables individuals to participate actively in their community and engage in commerce from the comfort and convenience of their home. It would be a cruel irony to adopt the interpretation of the ADA espoused by Blick, which would render the legislation intended to emancipate the disabled from the bonds of isolation and segregation obsolete when its objective is increasingly within reach.

The ruling in this case and others illustrates that businesses need to consider their websites equivalent to a place of public accommodation, which puts them at risk of being sued, even without explicit web accessibility regulations.

Latest DOJ Guidelines

In 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a rulemaking process to address ADA requirements for website accessibility, including technical standards for accessible websites. However, that effort stalled for seven years during the Obama administration (even though the administration continued to pursue investigations and enforcement actions against businesses with inaccessible websites).

The Trump administration abandoned the process to interpret the ADA entirely in 2017. In 2018, the DOJ revealed that it would not give official guidance regarding website accessibility under the Act, releasing this statement:

The Department is evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate. Such an evaluation will be informed by additional review of data and further analysis. The Department will continue to assess whether specific technical standards are necessary and appropriate to assist covered entities with complying with the ADA.

Since the DOJ’s withdrawal, the number of lawsuits involving website accessibility increased dramatically, raising awareness regarding website accessibility among businesses but also causing confusion surrounding what features an ADA-compliant website should include. As a result, numerous website accessibility consulting companies emerged promising inexpensive solutions. However, some have been challenged in court.

In June 2018, some bipartisan members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions encouraging the DOJ to release clear website accessibility regulations to diminish the unclear nature of current legislation. On September 25, 2018, the DOJ responded by stating that, at this time, the DOJ would not be issuing web accessibility regulations under the ADA: “The Department has consistently taken the position that the absence of a specific regulation does not serve as a basis for noncompliance with a statute’s requirements.”

In March 2022, the DOJ issued further web accessibility guidance under the ADA. The “new” guidance references both the WCAG – which are voluntary – and Section 508 standards, which set standards for federal websites, and indicates that the DOJ supports the notion that sites of public accommodation must be accessible, and in the absence of explicit regulations, websites can be flexible in how they choose to comply with the ADA’s requirements. However, the guidance does not clarify what such flexibility or choice entails and– not necessarily the direction regulation-seekers are looking for, since it provides no substantially new information regarding the vagueness of website accessibility requirements under the ADA.

Final Thoughts

As accessibility regulations for websites remain unclear, it can be easy for organizations to assume that they cannot be sued for noncompliance. However, with no specific standards to follow, law firms and other businesses must do their best to interpret the ADA, practice website accessibility as they see fit, and try to avoid website accessibility-related lawsuits.

One more thing to consider: ambiguity runs both ways, and even though an organization might think its website is accessible, a disabled person might think otherwise, providing the grounds for a lawsuit. Organizations aren’t granted immunity simply because of a lack of clarity in legislation. Instead, uncertainty allows for interpretation by anyone, including the courts.

This article was authored by Jan Hill of Lawmatics.

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 — Lawmatics