Most everyday Americans probably know very little about its particulars, though they all know the name. Business owners, especially small business owners, are well aware of its abuse on several fronts, from labeling pets as "emotional support" (fortunately this has been clearly rejected by statute, but people try it anyway), to suing business owners because their wheelchair ramps are the wrong angle, to examples such as the one you mention (which to me was a violation of free speech as well).
I am all for web accessibility, and I think companies and developers should consider it a priority, but I do not think a law like the ADA is a good fit for this issue. The parts of the ADA that are good are the prohibition on actively discriminating against people with disabilities and requiring reasonable changes in policies. Requiring buildings to be rebuilt and taking down websites are excessive infringements on freedom and would best be addressed by the free market.
It would be one of many possible features firms could compete on. Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue (and potentially take you from a perfect competition to monopolistic competition secnario, reducing the elasticity of demand for your product, allowing you to raise the price).
> Developing more accessible apps would result in an increased userbase leading to greater revenue
Only if the marginal cost of developing them is less than the revenue attained by developing them, which is also limited by the amount of funds that disabled people have.
Disabled people existed before ADA, and the reason ADA was popular was because it didn’t make business sense to serve the disabled population. There’s no way construction costs of ADA accessible features of a building will ever be recouped by sales to disabled people needing it.
A free market solution would require the government to give sufficient cash to disabled people, enough to make businesses want to compete for them. But that is also wrought with possibilities for corruption.
I am all for web accessibility, and I think companies and developers should consider it a priority, but I do not think a law like the ADA is a good fit for this issue. The parts of the ADA that are good are the prohibition on actively discriminating against people with disabilities and requiring reasonable changes in policies. Requiring buildings to be rebuilt and taking down websites are excessive infringements on freedom and would best be addressed by the free market.
Here are some links you might find interesting: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/06/11/the-disabli... https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/ada-trolls-and-unintended-... https://www.city-journal.org/beyonce-lawsuit-ada https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/parking-lot-trolls-laws... https://adadefense.net/