Recently, the US Supreme Court is preparing to rule on an important case that could decide the fate of disabled activists in the court of law. The dispute in question is whether disabled activists should have the right to sue establishments after searching for the firms online. The case involves four identical lawsuits against Marriott International, all of which were filed by advocates for the disabled in the state of Florida. The campaigners, Carolina Echevarria and her colleagues, are each seeking compensation from Marriott for their “reputational and emotional distress” due to the company’s alleged failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuits allege that Marriott had provided inadequate online information about their hotel rooms, including inadequate information on possible modifications for disabled persons, and inadequate information as to how disabled persons can access the hotel’s amenities. The plaintiffs also claim that the lack of proper online information had effectively prevented them from choosing a preferred hotel or securing a room from Marriott. The debate before the Supreme Court is whether internet searches should be treated differently from look-ups done in person. Marriott has argued that a search online does not carry the same weight as a search done in person and therefore does not warrant the same legal rights. The hotel company has called the lawsuits an “unprecedented and sweeping expansion” of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that it “elevates the search for information above the real-world legal conventions and standards of commercial transactions, which have long rejected extreme remedies for mere informational failures”. The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether these lawsuits should be allowed to go ahead and what kind of compensation disabled activists would be entitled to if they were successful. The ruling is likely to set a significant precedent, and could offer further protection for disabled consumers in the future. Given the potential implications of this decision, it looks set to be a defining moment in the battle for disabled rights in the US. Whatever the outcome, it could have far-reaching consequences for the disabled community both now and in the future.