This lawsuit is by a blind man who is unable to use this ATMs. Naming multiple parties is a litigation strategy, not a sign of a "frivolous" lawsuit.


This has nothing to do with the ADA lawsuit. In fact, physical notice requirement is going through the process of potentially being repealed now that notices are provided on-screen.


IMO, I disagree. The industry had some approx 2+ years to make adjustments and even before that they were aware of the change coming down the road even though it was not set in stone. Very few banks were making changes then, they waited and waited and waited.


FALSE. The period of being compliant by having a plan ended on March 15, 2012. Regardless of whether or not you have a plan, if the ATM is not compliant, you are not compliant.


Whether or not it is an undue burden depends on the financials of your bank. Providing that figure without knowledge of how large a bank you are and how much in income the bank gains, it is impossible to provide an answer. The fact you are doing is though shows it is not an undue burden.

At the end of the day banks love to say how much the ATM's save them in overhead in regards to staffing, how much the ATM's save them in regards to efficiency, and how much revenue the ATM's generate with fees. Yet, the one time the banks are legally reponsible to make these machines accessible to disabled Americans, all of a sudden it is a money pit.


One of your key access devices, an access device that is continuously advertised and promoted, is not available to disabled customers. The everyday person has trouble enough finding time to get to the bank because of the limited hours, but now this disabled person is expected to do that and not have the benefit of one of your most promoted access devices?

A blind man is suing banks that refuse to provide the service they are legally obligated to. The requirements for the ATMs are VERY well known - so it is not some little known technicality. If your bank wants to provide technologically advanced services for customers then you have a responsibility to provide those in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

The ADA Guidelines are not requiring you to reconstruct ATMs and lower them... simply provide services such as an earpiece technology that has been around for ATMs for quite some time now.

The thing I find most egregious is the complete disregard and/or contempt to provide disabled Americans with simple access features that are legally required. Many disabled Americans were put into their situations because they are retired veterans who were injured during the call of duty protecting this country. God forbid a bank provide them the ability to use an ATM with a simple earpiece.

Bob and Pup,

Thank you both for sharing what I believe are deeply-held convictions on this issue.

At 33 - 40 percent of the settlement going to the law firm we will always see these types of cases.

Well said.


We upgraded hundreds of ATMs. It wasn't easy or cheap, but it is the law and it is the right thing to do. The ADA provides for private action because it is the only way to force change...most people have little understanding of how difficult it can be to live with a disability.

I don't think this question ever got addressed? Any thoughts????

I responded to this question in another thread.

The only requirement is what is in 707. What can you do to provide privacy?

707.4 Privacy. Automatic teller machines shall provide the opportunity for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all individuals.

Advisory 707.4 Privacy. In addition to people who are blind or visually impaired, people with limited reach who use wheelchairs or have short stature, who cannot effectively block the ATM screen with their bodies, may prefer to use speech output. Speech output users can benefit from an option to render the visible screen blank, thereby affording them greater personal security and privacy.