[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 177 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Page S6873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ADA DRIVEBY LAWSUITS

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in a driveby lawsuit, an attorney will 
drive by a place of business and look for technical ADA violations. 
These are usually minor violations that are easily correctable, like 
the width of a parking space or the height of a van accessible sign.
  Oftentimes, if a technical violation exists, the attorney will either 
send a demand letter or threaten the business with a lawsuit. 
Oftentimes, the demand letter will request a settlement that is just 
under what it would cost the business to litigate, so the business 
owner picks the lesser of the two evils and pays the settlement.
  The scope of the problem is only growing. From the first 6 months of 
2015 to the first 6 months of 2016, there was a 63-percent increase in 
the number of suits filed under title III of the ADA. This year is on 
pace to see almost 7,000 of these cases brought forward--7,000. Compare 
7,000 to the 4,800 lawsuits filed in 2015 and 2,700 in 2013, and we can 
see what a boon this has been for trial lawyers. In fact, this past 
Sunday, ``60 Minutes'' did a special report on driveby lawsuits and the 
toll they are taking on small businesses throughout the country. I 
would encourage anyone to watch that piece. It explains the problem 
very well.
  While California, Florida, and New York have the highest incidents of 
these driveby lawsuits, my home State of Arizona has seen a dramatic 
increase in these suits over the last 3 years. In 2013, there were 
three ADA title III suits brought in Arizona--three. By 2015, that 
number was up to 207. As of September of this year, Arizona has already 
seen 284.
  It is clear that the problem is only getting worse. My legislation 
would go a long way to solve it. If enacted, property owners must first 
be given notice of their alleged ADA violation, at which point they 
would have 120 days to cure the violation before a lawsuit could be 
brought. If the property owner fails to address the violation in a 
timely manner, then they can be sued. The bill also instructs the 
Department of Justice to promote further ADA compliance through 
education so small business owners know what is expected of them. I 
think these reforms will help business owners and persons with 
disabilities achieve their mutual goal of ADA compliance.
  The ADA has been a great success in its 25-year history. It is 
essential that business owners continue to see it as a tool to ensure 
fairness for people with disabilities and not as a weapon to line the 
pockets of unscrupulous lawyers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business, with Senators 
permitted to speak for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________