Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC
50 F.4th 259
1st Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Laufer is a wheelchair user and ADA "tester" who searches hotel reservation websites for compliance with accessibility disclosure requirements.
- Defendant Acheson Hotels operates the Coast Village Inn; its own website and thirteen third-party booking portals allegedly failed to identify or describe accessible features as required by the ADA reservation regulation.
- Laufer sued in the District of Maine under Title III of the ADA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages); the district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
- On appeal the First Circuit treated Acheson’s Rule 12(b)(1) challenge as a facial attack and accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations for jurisdictional purposes.
- The court analyzed whether (1) denial of statutorily required accessibility information is a concrete, particularized injury for standing, (2) Laufer has standing to seek injunctive relief (imminence), and (3) the case is moot given website changes; it concluded Laufer has standing, may seek injunctive relief, and the case is not moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III injury-in-fact from denial of accessibility information | Laufer: denial of statutorily required reservation information is a concrete informational injury (tester status irrelevant) | Acheson: Laufer had no intent to use the info (only testing), so any harm is speculative and not concrete | Court: Denial of statutorily required information can be a concrete injury; Havens Realty and other precedents support standing |
| Relevance / particularization of harm | Laufer: injury personally affects her as a person with disabilities and causes dignitary harms (frustration, humiliation) | Acheson: denial was irrelevant to Laufer because she never intended to book, so injury is generalized | Court: Injury is particularized — Laufer personally was denied information the statute requires and alleges individualized dignitary harms |
| Standing for injunctive relief (imminence) | Laufer: as an ADA tester she has concrete plans to revisit the websites in the near future | Acheson: past exposure is insufficient; Laufer’s plans are speculative | Court: Laufer alleged concrete, imminent plans to re-test accessible from home; sufficiently likely to recur for injunctive standing |
| Mootness after website changes | Laufer: claim includes third-party booking portals that remain allegedly noncompliant | Acheson: its website has been updated so controversy resolved | Court: Heavy burden on movant; because third-party portals may remain noncompliant, dispute not moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (tester who is denied statutorily required truthful information has standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (intangible harms can be concrete; courts consider history and Congress’s judgment)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (informational injuries often require adverse downstream consequences to be concrete)
- Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (denial of statutorily mandated information can constitute injury-in-fact)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (FOIA requesters have standing upon being denied records without showing further harm)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires a likelihood of future injury)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (plaintiff must show standing for each form of relief sought)