This is the kind of things where the industry needs to adopt "best practices" then buy off Congress to immunize those who follow those practices.

Did I say "buy off," sorry, I meant "lobby."

Blue- and red-pixels adjacent or lined up on top of each other? Unless we are looking at them straight on, those get cross-ways and overlap or no longer line up for those of us wearing thick glasses. Not only can this cause distractions and headaches, but in some cases like a poorly-done bar chart it can actually lead to me reading the bar chart differently than a person with thinner glasses, contacts, or 20/20 vision.

In the case of the BSA, you can easily identify all legitimate plaintiffs - there is usually only 1 per possible violation - and it or they can authorize the BSA to act on its behalf.

Even if every ADA-advocacy-group signed on with Prenda, Prenda could still not speak for individuals who were not members of these groups, and it could not speak for those who were members of the groups unless the individuals had authorized the groups to act as their legal representatives in such cases.

In short, Prenda is saying "settle with us" without saying "but oh by the way there are millions of potential plaintiffs out there who can sue you over this same issue tomorrow."

If that isn't worthy of sanctions by the state bar associations, it should be.

Unlike a copyright claim that only has one potential plaintiff, EVERY disabled person in America is a potential plaintiff, as well as your state's Attorney General and the US Attorney General.

Plus, once you've been sued, you can no longer claim ignorance if someone else sues you over the same issue later.

The only proper response is to say "thank you for informing us of the problem" and if there is an actual violation, fix it or find some legal work-around (You have excess bathrooms that aren't ADA-compliant? Close them down. Is there a way to apply for a waiver? Apply. Etc. etc.). But do not pay the dane-geld or you will never get rid of the "Dane".

Oh, and yes, these guys should be disbarred for offering to settle a claim when they know good and well they cannot speak for all potential plaintiffs AND they know good and well that if a settlement is reached, it will at least temporarily defeat the purpose and intent of the law.

Many companies own assets that are hard to value or quickly fluctuate in value so any expert appraisal of the "asset value" of a company should be assumed to have non-trivial "error bars."

Also, some "assets" like "goodwill" are very difficult to measure reliably. Let's take the company that makes Blue Bell Ice Cream. It's got 100+ years of "goodwill" stored up in the minds of Texas Ice Cream and once they get their production going again, their ice cream will fly off the shelf in Texas simply because many customers will buy it "as a show of support".

However, the current recall as "spent" a good deal of that "goodwill": If they have a similar recall any time in the next 30 years, or if they do anything that indicates they don't care about their product's quality, they won't have it nearly as easy a time if they have another corporate disaster.

All outbound travelers should have a meaningful way of saying "no, I don't want you to search this thing. Hold it for me until I get back or until the person I designate retrieves it. I will pay reasonable and customary storage charges." The same option should be given for "not allowed on the plane" items like over-sized bottles, etc. where the flyer would not otherwise be arrested (in other words, either arrest and charge the person with a crime or give him the option of not having his "contraband" forfeited/trashed).

All inbound travelers should be able to say "no, I do not give you permission to search it. If it is suspected of being too dangerous to transport (e.g. explosives) you may destroy it at my expense, otherwise you may either ship it back to my home country at my expense or hold it until my departure and I will pay reasonable and customary storage costs."

The laws of physics for starters.

Perhaps its time to exclude "occasionally paid" haulers, such as those with a gross annual revenue of under $1,000 and who do less than 12 hauling jobs for pay in any 12-month period, and provide simple registration and lower liability requirements for "weekenders" who do up to $10,000/year in gross revenue and up to 104 jobs in any 12-month period. I would also exempt "charity-benefit" jobs from the calculations - if someone makes it clear up front that all the money the customer pays is going straight to a bona fide charity, the law should treat it the same as if he was doing the job for free.*

For those excluded from the law, I would require that all ads include a disclaimer which included a link to a state-run web site explaining that if something goes wrong, the customer will be left holding the bag.

I would also clarify the law to either explicitly protect people who hire un-registered or registered-but-lightly-insured couriers from 3rd-party lawsuits due to damages to 3rd parties caused by the mover and protect them from civil liability if they don't run a background check on their mover, OR, of the people of that state don't want to do that, to EXPLICITLY put the customers "on notice" that they may be hauled into court if their mover causes damage to a 3rd party. Of course, doing the latter would practically kill this cottage industry altogether, which is why I favor the first option of making the customer immune from 3rd-party damages.

--
* When friends or family ask me to do more than a few hours of my time and it's not a situation of "family obligations" or the like, I give them an estimate and ask them to make out a check in that amount to some charity. In my case I do it so 1) they will at least consider hiring a poor starving college student instead, 2) so they will understand the value of what they are asking for, and 3) because I don't need the money and I want to be very clear that when I can, I am willing to share my time with them without being paid or having them feel like they "owe me one."