I hope they're also suing the owner of the animal and not just the airport, which of course would probably have bigger pockets.

Did anyone notice that the linked story said that the dog's owner took a later flight that day without the ESA, so presumably the passenger was able to travel without whatever emotional support the pit bull gave. Moreover, there's mention of a generic letter from a therapist claiming a need for an animal, but not even specifying a dog. To me, this case screams fake ESA with (fake) documentation purchased from a website.