For the most part that was a really good article. I was surprised, generally I cringe before reading such an article. I think many actually make the problem worse, stating inaccuracies that can influence the type of people that try to fake.
But the law is not so clear about what a service dog is and what a disability is.
"There's always gray areas with all this, and there's a lot of litigation over what's a disability," Melissa said.
This part bugged me, while I do think there needs to be more law on what is and is not a service animal, there IS a lengthy write up on the definition of disability. This is the type of inaccuracy I was just talking about, we see it frequently where people claim that there is not a definition of disability and therefor just because their dr says they're disabled they are protected under the ADA. Its not true, there is a definition and not every medical problem is legally disabling.
Section 902 Definition of the Term Disability
I'm also bothered by their choices of places to test bringing in the fake dog. They state earlier in the article that health codes are broken with fake service dogs... Then they go break them? And admit it in an article? That seems pretty stupid to me. I think they should have chosen places without food involved.
I also wish they had put more emphasis on what CAN be done, and a little less on what cannot be done. I guess its more dramatic though focusing on "nothing can be done!!" But thats another inaccuracy I find dangerous. We see it constantly on here, those who are not fully familiar with the law think that nothing can be done. But things can be done, and the best protection is being familiar with the law instead of focusing on "woe is me, nothing can be done."
Know the law. Know what can and cannot be asked. Know what consequences are involved. Even an actual service dog can be asked to leave if they are causing a disturbance. If the owner asked the right questions and is in doubt, IMO they should ask the person to leave. If its a valid team they have protected themselves. The business owner can sue the individual faking. The individual can be punished for fraud in some states. They can be in trouble for breaking health codes.
How about some dramatic focus on what CAN be done to scare away those fakers?