Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

This case originated from a lawsuit filed by Deborah Laufer, a disabled individual and self-proclaimed ADA tester, against Acheson Hotels, LLC. Laufer sued the hotel for failing to provide accessibility information on its reservation website, a violation she claimed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though she had no intention of visiting the hotel. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether a tester has standing to sue for an informational injury under the ADA when they suffer no concrete personal harm beyond the statutory violation. The Court heard arguments on December 5, 2023.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court vacated the lower court's judgment. The mootness was due to the plaintiff, Deborah Laufer, dismissing her pending ADA cases after her attorney was sanctioned in a separate proceeding. The Court ordered the First Circuit to dismiss the case, leaving the fundamental question of tester standing unresolved.

The central dispute was whether a self-appointed ADA “tester” has Article III standing to sue a hotel for failing to post accessibility information on its website, when the tester had no genuine intention of booking a room or visiting the establishment, thereby suffering no concrete or particularized injury.

The Court’s dismissal as moot avoided a definitive ruling on ADA tester standing, leaving business groups disappointed and disability rights advocates relieved. The decision maintains the status quo in lower courts, perpetuating uncertainty for businesses facing serial litigation from testers. It highlighted a sharp divide in judicial philosophy, with Justice Thomas concurring to argue that Congress cannot confer standing to a plaintiff who suffers no concrete injury, while Justice Jackson concurred to emphasize that constitutional limits on standing must not be confused with statutory cause of action. The case underscores the ongoing tension between disability rights enforcement and the constitutional limits of litigation.