This is aimed at pit bulls in rental housing, but does affect all persons who purport their “pocket pooch” and purse lizard are service animals, or the ever-popular “support animal”. I believe that it will cut down on persons attempting to lie about their pet in order to receive privileges only allowed for legitimate service animals.
If one reads the whole article at the link, it appears as though the insurance industry is finally getting involved in the controversy. Perhaps it has begun to cost them money.
I think the first problem is that this is aimed at pit bulls in rental housing. ADA specifically forbids any discrimination against any breed of dog. Since the obvious intent is apparent to everyone, first time someone tries to use it, the courts are going to throw the law out as it applies to any penalties to the tenant.
Second problem is you’re thinking that companion animals have to do much of anything at all. All that’s required is a doctor’s note saying the animal might make the person feel more comfortable. It doesn’t even require the doctor to identify any disability or psychological issue which would be addressed aside from ‘comfort.’
Nor does the federal laws require the doctor to actually see the person in question to provide the note - hence why so many websites offer it for a fee. (Also there’s no limitations in federal law for the number of animals to be covered by such a note either.)
All this law will accomplish is opening a whole bunch of people to liability in lawsuits when they try to unilaterally enforce the provisions and possibly leave a property owner on the hook for any lawsuits over bites with zero liability being covered by the insurance companies.
The fix for this law is a) change ADA to permit requiring a demonstration of the service performed rather than simply a description of what service a dog will do, and b) permitting one companion animal which aids in existing in person treatment for a patient (thus nuking all the internet doctor’s note scams.) Both are actions which have to be taken at the federal level.
As for Oklahoma law, there’s little they can really do to protect landlords - the property itself is tasty security for any lawsuits. This might discourage a couple lawyers; I’m sure insurance companies are applauding the blanket release from liability which they’ll enjoy under this.
how calling it a purse reptile? how about a snake for a support animal.