Sunday, March 6, 2011

Plaintiff Reply to Motion to Dismiss

I.  Plaintiff re alleges all previous amended complaint concerns and opposes Defendants motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff has conferred with Defense Counsel and mediator Attorney Sulmeyer regarding court appointed mediation on March 23, 2011.  All parties have agreed to meet at 10 am at the San Francisco Orrick law firm.  Plaintiff also includes the emphasis of certain issues below and further review. 
II.  Plaintiffs accounts were founded in open and sincere relationships that embraced common interests and concerns.
Plaintiffs pages and interactions were supportive of and based in a realm of comradery and social bonding which
included a deep concern for people suffering from cancer.  And, cancer research was embraced from a perspective
of support for all people, scientific research, and mathematics.  This social networking atmosphere was embracing of
people fighting for their life who were terminally ill and the cancer cause as a whole.  Plaintiffs relationships and pages
contained an approximate 9,900 combined members.  Plaintiffs personal friends were all of varying relationship degrees and backgrounds embracing the true and sincere meaning of friendship and social networking.  Plaintiffs cancer research page, the Cartesian Plane For The Cure, was founded with the support of mathematics and scientific concepts.  It embraced people of varying religions and was informative in nature.  It received professional support and quotes from distinguished scholars to include;  Professor Anil Nerode, Cornell University, Goldwin Smith Professor of Mathematics -  Professor Neta Bahcall, Princeton University, Eugene Higgins Professor of Astrophysics - Professor John Bahcall, Institute of Advanced Study National Medal of Science - Professor David Vogan, MIT, Professor of Mathematics.  Also, pages and relationships included the appreciation, heartfelt and earnest concern for friendship and cancer support from; The Tim McGraw Family - To include, Mr. McGraw, Cari McGraw, Henry McGraw, and Mark McGraw - The Tug McGraw Foundation & Team McGraw - Professor Tim Dalrymple – Harvard Univeristy
Ph.D. in Religion & efforts on behalf of distinguished Professor of Law William Stuntz of Harvard University diagnosed with terminal cancer - Dr. Brian Lawenda, Harvard Medical School and Clinical Director, Radiation Oncology, U.S. Naval Medical Center.  This to include other professionals who were honestly concerned about the cancer cause and the entity of life.  And, the everyday people of all walks of life who didn't want to see others suffer or die.  People who honestly and truly cared.  This is what Plaintiffs accounts and relationships were about and embraced.  They embraced page member discussions in mathematics to include a related article at titled, "The Mathematics of Cancer" and the work of Dr. Larry Norton.  The Plaintiffs Cancer Forum page was more personally supportive of people with chicken noodle soup trivia questions of the day, personal stories, and cancer fighters such as the sick little Electron Boy in Seattle, Washington.  Photos on the Plaintiffs pages included pictures of the following;  flowers, bowls of chicken noodle soup, Electron Boy, American Flag, Statue of Liberty, American soldiers, cartesian plane, mathematics, Pope, Abel Prize, cancer cells, church, funeral service, no hate symbol, Farrah Fawcett, Patrick Swayze, Tim McGraw, Lance Armstrong, King Harald, John Tate, Rosalind Franklin, Sofia Kovalevskaya, Royal Palace, Oslo, Norway, Christian cross, atlas, Chicken Little, Iwo Jima, globe, Team McGraw, Tug McGraw Foundation, cancer support events, cancer volunteers, typewriter, Yarmouth, world map etc.  All of Plaintiffs pages embraced the sincere values of social networking and genuine concern for all people involved to include the business Facebook, Inc.  Plaintiff wanted all social networking relationships to be the best they could and regularly tried to seek clarity in vague, arbitrary and capricious issues.  Plaintiff wanted things to be as correct as possible with the utmost clarity.  Plaintiff never sought or wanted any account problems.  Plaintiff was honest and forthright in her concern for life.  Plaintiffs mother is fighting breast cancer.  Plaintiffs sister is fighting breast cancer.  Plaintiffs grandfather died from cancer.  All of Plaintiffs relationships and account posts were of the utmost sincerity.  Plaintiff embraced high level values and looked for help with ambiguity issues.  Plaintiffs thoughts, actions and ideas were indicative of a love of mathematics, appreciation of scientific concepts, efforts for the cancer
fighting cause, respect for different religions, respect for all people, and the fight for human life.  Plaintiff struggled ongoingly with the ambiguous, contradicting, inconclusive, arbitrary and capricious nature of Facebook, Inc. business outlines and practices.  Plaintiff sought help and looked for clarification regarding vagueness in issues and conflicting business statements.  Plaintiff did so prior to her account deactivation, during conflicting back and forth actions by Facebook representatives with the handling of Plaintiffs account, and after her account deletion to no avail.  Plaintiff was solicited by Facebook.  Computer generated friend requests were regularly sent to Plaintiff by Facebook which plaintiff did not initially seek out.  Plaintiff received mixed messages regarding inviting and receiving friendships from Facebook.  Plaintiff sought help and clarity in Facebook advertising and solicitations with no clear response from Facebook, Inc.  Plaintiff was subjected to opaque and evasive responses combined with conflicting Facebook written statements.
III.  Plaintiff acted with sincere concern and intentions from day one of her account activation in February 2010.  Plaintiff sought clarity regarding Facebook, Inc. conflicting, ambiguous, vague and capricious account issues regularly until her account deactivation problem in June 2010.  During this approximate 4 month period, Plaintiff was subjected to contradicting business messages and advertising by Facebook, Inc.  Plaintiff wanted and sought help and clarity.  Plaintiff read contradicting business messages and advertising that were arbitrary and capricious in nature.  Plaintiff only received computer programmed, automated responses from Facebook, Inc. that did not address Plaintiffs concerns and problems.  If anything, they caused more of a problem to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff was concerned about inconsistencies and conflicting issues with Facebook from early on and reached out to Defendant.
Plaintiff never received any human response and was directed to a help page that did not answer Plaintiffs concerns or provide any form of online chat for customer service.
For Example, this message was received by Plaintiff on March 9th 2010 -
Thanks for your feedback.  We're constantly trying to improve Facebook, so it's important that we hear from our users.  Unfortunately, we can't respond to your emails individually, but we are trying to read them.  We appreciate you taking the time to write us.  If there are any specific changes you recommend, please let us know.  If you are having any problems with your account, please refer back to our Help page ( where you'll find information about Facebook as well as the answers to many of your questions.
Thanks again for your feedback.
The Facebook Team
Plaintiff never received any communication from a Facebook representative prior to going to Facebook Headquarters.  Defense counsel is 100% wrong in their statement - "Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff sought such "help or assistance" in the form of "human interaction" between her and Facebook.  At the same time, however, Exhibit D to Plaintiffs Complaint reveals that a Facebook representative in fact communicated with Plaintiff and responded to her inquiries, advising her of her termination."  The Defense counsel has clearly not read all of the times, dates, and communication of email which were filed with the District Court of California.  Defense counsel's further statement - "Other than her claim that she did not receive human interaction - which is contradicted by her own pleading..."  Is equally 100% wrong by Defense counsel.   The Defense counsel's erroneous statements and lack of true concern is misleading to the court and additional reason for the concern of the court.  Exhibit D contains many emails which should be read in chronological order, not an order made up by the Defense.  The Defense has not done their research into all of the issues so pertinent to this case, rather, they are using generalities to minimize Plaintiffs concerns and hurt, and to avoid what the discovery process will show.  Plaintiff got no response from Facebook when she sent concerned messages regarding her account.
For Example, this one on June 11, 2010 -
Subject:  Please Help Account Disabled - Terminally Ill Friends
Dear Facebook, Please help.  My account has been deactivated and I do not know why.  I have tried to send three emails and I am still not getting a reply.  People who are terminally ill with cancer regularly interact with me on Facebook.  And, I have two pages that are to help cancer patients.  The Cartesian Plane For The Cure and Cancer Forum.  What is going on?  I am trying to be supportive of them.  This is very hurtful to many people.  What happened?
For Example, this one on June 11, 2010 in reply to a computer generated response -
Subject:  Responding per email directions from Facebook - Disabled Account Problem
I am writing regarding the disabled account problem that I am experiencing.  I received an email stating
to send this information back to you.  Is there anything else that you need?
Plaintiff received no human response via email or other communication.  Plaintiff made numerous inquiries, to include telephone calls to Facebook headquarters which were answered by voice messages telling people to send more email.  Plaintiff was sent an automated email by the Defendant.
Your account was disabled because your behavior on the site was identified as harassing or threatening to other people on Facebook. Prohibited behavior includes, but is not limited to:
• Sending friend requests to people you don’t know
• Regularly contacting strangers through unsolicited Inbox messages
• Soliciting others for dating or business purposes
After reviewing your situation, we have determined that your behavior violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. You will no longer be able to use Facebook. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.
People have been afforded an appeal process without ever having to drive to Facebook Headquarters.
Plaintiff never received any notice of appeal and was never extended any appeal rights.
Plaintiff never received any other communication from Facebook, Inc. other than computer generated.
After receiving this cold and careless computer response without regard, Plaintiff drove to California.
Plaintiffs feelings and actions were sincere and reciprocated by others.  Plaintiff did not receive any complaints or knowledge of any problems with any of her friends.  On the contrary, Plaintiffs page posts and messages are filled with compliments, thank you's, and sincere emotions of warmth.  Terminally ill friends, those doing chemotherapy, suicidal, sick and bed ridin friends were even more happy about the level of concern and interactions.  These people expressed thoughts and feelings of hope.  And, Plaintiff wanted to help and to continue to be supportive.  Plaintiffs friends regularly interacted with Plaintiff in a welcomed atmosphere of unity toward the support for life.  Plaintiffs emphasis was toward a general concern for health and well being for all.  All friendships were voluntarily mutual and equally reciprocated by both parties. 
The definition of a friend includes the following:
American Heritage Dictionary -
  1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
  2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.
  3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.
  4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement.
  5. Friend A member of the Society of Friends; a Quaker.

     1.  a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b : acquaintance
     2.  a : one that is not hostile b : one that is of the same nation, party, or group
     3.  : one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)
     4.  : a favored companion
The definition of Social Network or Social Networking include the following:
1.  A person's family, neighbors, and friends with whom they are socially involved.
2.  The use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc.
3.  The interaction between a group of people who share a common interest.
4.  A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people.
5.  Is the assembly, or coming together of individuals in specific groups or communities.
6.  This is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. Like social bookmarks a social network can form a key element of collaborating and networking.
7.  An association of people drawn together by family, work or hobby.
8.  Web-based social networking occurs through a variety of websites that allow users to share content, interact and develop communities around similar interests.
Facebook written statements directly contradict their own account termination notice which was sent to Plaintiff.
"Facebook Principles - 1.  Freedom to Share and Connect - People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone - any person, organization or service - as long as they both consent to the connection." and even more so, with the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.  "The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities derives from the Facebook Principles, and governs our relationship with users and others who interact with Facebook.  By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this statement."  The Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is misleading. 
Facebook advertises for users to connect with friends, strangers, or others they meet in order to forge relationships.  Furthermore, Facebook intentionally solicited Plaintiff with regular pages of friend requests for Plaintiff.  These "friends" were computer generated by Facebook and advertised to Plaintiff for friendship.  Plaintiff did not ask or request any "friends" to be solicited to her with advertising.  Facebook has previously acknowledged that their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is in fact an operative contract.  As such, Facebook has a legal implied duty of responsibility to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff's account was terminated with arbitrary actions and in bad faith with vagueness and capricious handling.  Plaintiff did not receive clear and concise information regarding any definite problem with her account or any of her account pages.  Plaintiff tried in good faith and fair dealing to effectively and efficiently communicate with Defendant on many occasions.  Even after filling out a complaint form with a receptionist who was not allowed to release her name, Plaintiff was not allowed to discuss her account situation with anyone in person.  Plaintiff was forced to either openly broadcast her disability to anyone/everyone at Facebook, Inc. Headquarters via random note pad, or to not discuss her disability at all.  The receptionist did not know who the written note would be forwarded to for a response and could not give out any additional information.  Plaintiffs privacy rights and disability were of no concern to Facebook.  Plaintiff was told to wait a couple of days for an electronic message from Facebook.  Facebook had no secure or private means of communication available for Plaintiff to discuss her disability in confidentiality either in person or online.  Forms of discrimination include improper account handling, a lack of accessibility and unreasonable customer service standards or communication.  Plaintiff even responded to the electronic email
which was sent to her two days later.  Plaintiff received no return response from Facebook even after stating that there was sincere concern.  Also, this email sent by Defendant may or may not have been an actual human being as it was formatted like other computer generated responses.  The Facebook representative "Gianna" who posts her name on a formatted response sheet, sent an email to Plaintiff after Plaintiff physically went to Facebook Headquarters and hand wrote a customer service inquiry.  Plaintiff did this in the presence of a receptionist who was not allowed to give out her name, and who told Plaintiff that she was not allowed to speak to anyone.  Also, the emails referenced are supportive of the Plaintiffs negligence claim which shows contradicting actions by Facebook, Inc. and a complete lack of regard.  The computer message sent by Defendant on July 9, 2010 stated - "Your account was disabled because Facebook's security system flagged your behavior as potentially abusive.  This could be because..." 
This message was speculative and not founded in fact.  This message was random and not conclusive or indicative of a defined problem that was ever clearly identified with the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs account pages.  Plaintiff had good relationships and sincere page posts.  Plaintiff immediately sent a clarity email to "Gianna" who seemingly totally disappeared without any response whatsoever.  
Friday July 9, 2010
Subject: My Personal Profile Was Disabled
Thank you for your note.  I am still unclear as to why friend requests are a problem.  I have a mother and sister fighting
breast cancer.  Personally, I am trying to do all that I can to support them and the entity of cancer research as a whole.
I know many people who are dying.  I've met new friends and people who are very appreciative of all that I've cared about.  Are you saying that I cannot welcome new friends who are cancer patients?  Am I not allowed to open myself to others related to this cause by sending friend requests?  Others have told me how happy they are that I am in there life.  And, that my fight for life and others has been very inspiring and given hope.  To people dying and sick with disease you have to see how important that is.  Is there a limit to friend requests?  Can you tell me how many I'm allowed to send out in a certain time period?  If you can give me more specifics I would have no problem.  I'm truly unclear as to your position on this and I'm trying to understand your perspective.  I would gladly meet with you in person, can I meet with you at your office?  I'm sincerely concerned and truly want to do what is right.  I drove a 10 year old car across country on very little means.
Thanks for caring,
Shortly thereafter without any response to Plaintiffs email, Plaintiffs account was permanently deleted. 
Plaintiff felt that the lack of response by this alias "Gianna" was not only odd, but that it was morally and ethically wrong.  A fabricated, fake name on a computer generated email would be further deceptive to any individual with or without a disability and would be very notable in this case.  A real human being should have cared and a real business should have responded.  Plaintiff never received any clear and concise notice from Facebook, Inc. regarding a specific problem that was directly identified with Plaintiff.  Plaintiffs account termination was never handled with due care and good faith.  Instead, it was based in arbitrary and vague business practices that supported not only the lack of consistency within the company, but contradicting actions of company representatives. 
IV.  Plaintiff has never had any problems with Internet sites such as AOL and EBAY.  The two companies AOL and EBAY show all of the values and genuine concern that is lacking in Facebook, Inc.  AOL and EBAY are great stellar examples of two Internet companies who embrace customer service standards and concern for people.  They do so with statements that are backed by customer service support that is both on and offline.  They do so with real people, with email and/or instant chat services.  AOL and EBAY represent themselves with clarity and professionalism.  EBAY goes further using technology as a supplement by telling customers their inquiry has been received, what number they are in line for service, and approximately how long it will take until they will be responded to.  That is a great example of how technology can be used to help people not hinder or hurt people.  AOL and EBAY are first rate examples of the type of communication that should be embraced by society and the court in the age of the Internet and Internet accounts.   Facebook, Inc's. arbitrary and capricious account handling and terminations is entirely substandard.  But even more so, it is deceiving and hurtful to good hearted people who are honestly trying to work with, contribute to, understand, and be a part of the social networking environment.   
V.  As of January 1, 1993, any violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act is also a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Discrimination is bound to both arbitrary and intentional discrimination acts.  Courts have interpreted the UCRA act to prohibit any arbitrary discrimination regardless of whether or not that basis is specifically mentioned in the Act itself(Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) Cal 4th, and Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. )  Other legal disability cases include - National Federation of The Blind v. United Airlines where equal access to mainstream technology is noted.  Plaintiff never received reasonable communication or appeal communication.  Website accessibility should be available for and with reasonable circumstances.
As is noted in the Federation of The Blind v. Target, The Federation of The Blind v. LSAC, The Federation of The Blind v. Amazon, and Smith v.  Professional comments from the DRA speak to this effect in the post listed below:
Comments on the 2010 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Web Accessibility (“Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations”).   28 C.F.R. Parts 35 and 36; CRT Docket No. 110; AG Order No. RIN 1190-AA61
The following comments are filed by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a disability civil rights law firm.  DRA is a non-profit legal organization which, for nearly twenty years, has specialized in impact class action litigation on behalf of people with all types of disabilities. DRA litigates nationally and has offices in New York City and Berkeley, California.  DRA has particular expertise in representing individuals who are blind or low vision and individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in seeking equal access to online technologies. 
We have represented the largest blind organizations in the nation, including the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the American Council of the Blind and the California Council of the Blind.  In 2008, we helped the NFB reach a groundbreaking settlement with Target to ensure that all aspects of the online shopping experience were accessible to consumers who use assistive technologies such as screen readers.  We reached similar settlements with, California’s major energy utility companies and the Law School Admissions Council to guarantee the accessibility of these websites.  We also reached a settlement with that enhances the ability for consumers to search for accessibility features at partner hotels listed on the website.
More information about our work relevant to these comments can be found on our website at  
DRA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the questions posed by the Department in its four recent Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) to amend regulations issued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which cover: (1) Web site accessibility; (2) movie captioning and video description; (3) accessible features for Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1); and (4) accessible equipment and furniture.  See 75 Fed. Reg. 43460, 75 Fed. Reg. 43467, 75 Fed. Reg. 43446, and 75 Fed. Reg. 43452 (all published on July 26, 2010).
DRA agrees with the comments submitted by the Law Office of Lainey Feingold and Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian.  However, there are particular questions posed by the Department for which we would like to provide more thorough answers based on our experience representing people with disabilities and tackling online accessibility issues.
Question 4:  Given the ever-changing nature of many websites, should the Department adopt performance standards instead of any set of specific technical standards for website accessibility?
Answer to Question 4:
We strongly support the two-pronged approach to website accessibility suggested by Feingold, et al.  A performance standard should be adopted in addition to, not in place of, adherence to the WCAG 2.0 AA success criteria. The performance standard should emphasize usability and equal access for people with disabilities using assistive technology to the full range of activities and services available through the website of a covered entity.
We also support the language suggested by Feingold, et al.: “A website owned, operated or controlled by a covered entity shall be accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.  The site shall ensure that persons with disabilities may access or acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same products and services the covered entity offers visitors to its website without disabilities, with a substantially equivalent ease of use.”
This additional performance standard will ensure that any new developments in the internet that are not captured by the WCAG 2.0 standards are undertaken in a manner that ensures equal accessibility and usability to people with disabilities.
Question 5: The Department seeks specific feedback on the limitations for coverage that it is considering (e.g., excluding externally linked websites a covered entity does not own or control and is not needed to take part in its goods and services; excluding informal or occasional trading, selling, or bartering of goods or services by private individuals; excluding Web content created or posted by website users for personal, noncommercial use).
Answer to Question 5:
Exemptions for informal and occasional trading by private individuals
We agree with the four key principles, posited by Feingold, et al., regarding a narrowly tailored exemption for informal and occasional trading by private individuals.  We wish to emphasize the importance of including virtual marketplaces like eBay in the Department’s regulations, even if the content is created and managed by private individuals.  For covered entities, which regularly provide such virtual marketplaces, it is necessary to require that the website be designed so that people buy and sell goods and services through this marketplace in a manner that is accessible.  This ensures that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in the virtual marketplace.
To facilitate and encourage access by covered entities which provide virtual marketplaces, we suggest that the covered entity be required to post a template for its users such that when the content is posted by the occasional seller, he can use an accessible template.
Similarly, for covered entities that regularly host a commercial marketplace, we propose that the covered entity include required fields in its pages where goods and services are sold and exchanged to ensure equal access to the information.  These fields should require a description of products and services in a manner than is accessible to screen readers.
Web content created or posted by educational institutions
We wish to emphasize the importance of regulations that cover content created for educational purposes.  Educational institutions, ranging from secondary schools to universities, are integrating online technology into the classroom experience.  Many professors at universities host their own websites which include crucial classroom information like syllabi and required readings.  Many universities also use the internet to stream online lectures and other relevant course materials.  Additionally, many teachers and professors require students to post comments on a classroom website to stimulate discussion among classmates.  These practices will only increase as more educational institutions turn to the internet to help facilitate both in-classroom and virtual learning.  Therefore, web accessibility guidelines must apply to internet use for educational purposes so that students with disabilities are fully included in all aspects of the learning process.
Question 14:  (What are the benefits that can be anticipated from action by the Department to amend the ADA regulations to address website accessibility?)
Answer to Question 14:
We agree with all the benefits listed in the comments of Feingold et al.; however, we wish to emphasize a crucial issue that impacts the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities: accessibility of information sources including online news sites. 
The internet has revolutionized the speed of reporting and the ability to access news information.  In this digital age, a large and growing part of the population access up-to-the-minute news information from the internet.  Many breaking news stories are posted on websites as a video so people can instantly access these stories from their computers or mobile phones.  Despite the prevalence and popularity of this news format, most videos do not offer captioning in any form.  As a result, people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing are denied access to this immediate online news source and often must wait hours to learn about breaking news from traditional television news programs. 
DRA urges the Department to adopt the WCAG 2.0 Level AA criteria which requires closed captioning for all audio content—both pre-recorded and live—within commercial websites.  Current technology, including sophisticated voice-recognition software and other computerized systems, is capable of creating live closed captioning in a manner that is both cost-effective and accurate.  Therefore, all commercial websites should be required to offer closed captioning for both live and pre-recorded audio content.
We commend the Department for beginning the important process of implementing web accessibility regulations for Title II and III entities; web accessibility is crucial to ensure that people with disabilities do not get left behind in the digital age.
Further, the ADA states -  
III-4.1100 General. A public accommodation may not impose eligibility criteria that either screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered to individuals without disabilities, unless it can show that such requirements are necessary for the provision of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
III-4.2100 General. A public accommodation must reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public accommodation can demonstrate, however, that a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations it provides, it is not required to make the modification.
III-4.3100 General. A public accommodation is required to provide auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to ensure equal access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations that it offers, unless an undue burden or a fundamental alteration would result.
Who is entitled to auxiliary aids? This obligation extends only to individuals with disabilities who have physical or mental impairments, such as vision, hearing, or speech impairments, that substantially limit the ability to communicate. Measures taken to accommodate individuals with other types of disabilities are covered by other title III requirements such as "reasonable modifications" and "alternatives to barrier removal. "
III-4.3300 Examples of auxiliary aids and services. Auxiliary aids and services include a wide range of services and devices that promote effective communication. Examples of auxiliary aids and services for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing include qualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDD's), videotext displays, and exchange of written notes.
Conclusion:  Reasonable business practices and communication should be in place for people with a disability.
And, the law implies that any business perform fairly, honestly, and reasonably.
However, Facebook has failed to comply with the needs of people either with or without a disability through opaque
communication and random acts not founded in fact.  Defendant has acted with conscious disregard in terms of its
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and with continued inconsistency in their handling of and termination of user accounts.
With respect, Plaintiff requests the Defendants Motion to Dismiss be denied in its entirety.
February 25, 2010
Karen Young