But IMO the other side of this is also tricky, because you don't want companies to respond by removing services for everyone.
There was an article on here the other day about how a town had a non-ADA-compliant crosswalk. Fearing a lawsuit, the town addressed the issue... by removing the crosswalk. (You could still cross the street—with a wheelchair, even—but you had to walk much further to do so.)
I also remember the article about the California university—was it Berkley?—where some professors posted their lectures freely online for members of the public. Of course, they didn't have the resources to go through and add subtitles—these lectures were for non-students, they didn't generate any revenue—and the university got sued. Obviously, they responded by pulling down the lectures.
Situations like these just make everything worse for everyone. How do we write regulations which avoid that?
Edit. Make it so it's legal to sue people that profit (money) off of this, at least the lawyers involved or ones that advertise these kinds of services.
So many ways to solve it. Too bad we as a society are stuck in a rut and can't undo bad choices or change direction easily. If you go down this path, be prepared for the onslaught of "you hate the disabled" from the entrenched interests. Some of which will be plain old disability advocacy groups that generally do good but also got stuck in this path and are captured by profit-seekers.
In some parts of the world, disabled people can sue businesses over accessibility issues. People complain about the “disability mafia” shaking down businesses, but I think it might be the only way to align incentives to actually get these problems reliably addressed.