The Internet as a Place of Public Accommodation: Are Business Websites Required to Be ADA Compliant?

On July 26, 1990, in the wake of the 1960s disability rights movement, former President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. Congress’ main objective in drafting the law was to clearly outline the rights of Americans with disabilities and to prohibit ability-based discrimination in the private sector. While the act is one of America’s most comprehensive pieces of civil rights legislation, its language has become outdated. [1] When the ADA was drafted, Internet use was not common, which is why lawmakers did not account for it in the legislation. [2] As a result, there is no framework for whether or not accessibility, namely image descriptions for the visually impaired and captioning for hearing impared Americans, applies to websites. Without the law explicitly defining whether companies are responsible for ensuring their online platforms are accessible, it is the judicial branch’s responsibility to interpret the scope of the ADA. While businesses cite costs of accessibility and legal fees as reasons to not ensure their sites’ ADA compliance, it is crucial to consider lawmakers’ intentions when evaluating relevant cases. [3] In order to achieve the ADA’s initial intent to ensure full inclusion of Americans with disabilities, especially in the age of technological advances, local and federal courts must rule that the ADA does indeed apply to business websites, particularly when they are providing a service available to the general public. 

Before analyzing pertinent court opinions regarding the scope of the ADA, it is critical to understand the explicit rights ensured by the act. When considering accommodation of public spaces, title III of the ADA states, “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” [4] Under U.S. Code 42, public accommodation is broadly defined as both public locations and private businesses, including theaters, shopping centers, bakeries, zoos, and more. [5] Therefore, Title III of the ADA intended to end any disability-based barriers to accessing the same basic goods and services that able-bodied Americans could easily obtain. While this title ensures equal access to public spaces and physical businesses, the legal interpretation of the word “place” is variable. When the law was drafted, the legislature did not account for the prevalence of the Internet in daily life. U.S. Code 42 does not include language about online spaces when legally defining public accommodation either [6]. As a result, the language in Title III of the ADA appears to only apply to physical spaces. However, with the rise of the digital world, the judiciary must decide to what extent Title III of the ADA applies to the Internet, if at all.

Where many businesses argue that the ADA only applies to services at or in spaces of public accommodation, recent judicial opinions have disagreed with this assertion and extended the ADA’s reach. In a 2012 lawsuit, National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix (2012), the National Association of the Deaf sued Netflix for not providing closed captions on their videos, rendering it inaccessible to hearing impaired users. The organization claimed that since all activity of Netflix occurred online and was available to the general public, it constitutes a public space; thus, section 3 of the ADA applied. [7] While Netflix ultimately settled the case and added captions to all videos, the federal district court for the Western District of Massachusetts established in initial hearings that it believed the ADA applied to online spaces. [8] When Netflix motioned to dismiss the case, the judge denied the motion, stating, “the legislative history of the ADA makes clear that Congress intended the ADA to adapt to changes in technology.” He went on to clarify that the ADA does not only apply to physical spaces open to the public, but services available to all, including online services. Therefore, streaming platforms like Netflix must comply with ADA regulations. [9] This opinion issued by District Judge Ponsor presents two arguments in favor of the ADA’s extension to online platforms. First, it clarifies that since the initial intent of the law was to evolve with society, the ADA applies to online platforms. The second, more nuanced approach, argues that Netflixs’ domain is public. Regardless of the argument, the opinion in National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix sets the precedent that the ADA should not be strictly interpreted because  key phrases, like “public space,” are constantly evolving. Therefore, in order to ensure basic rights of disabled Americans are protected, judicial opinions must continue extending the legal applications of the ADA as society evolves. If not, the government will have failed to protect the rights of minority groups, like the disability community. Each time a new development, such as technological advances, becomes integral to societal participation, the law must also account for minority groups’ particular needs.

The idea that the ADA extends to the Internet was further clarified in National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd (2015). The National Federation of the Blind filed a lawsuit against Scribd, Inc., a digital library that operates subscription based reading services on its site, for violation of title III of the ADA. They claimed that Scribd’s site was not compatible with non-visual means of operation, such as using screen reader technology. [10] When Scribd moved to dismiss the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont denied the motion. The opinion stated because the Internet plays a “critical role” in the lives of Americans, excluding those with disabilities through inaccessible platforms would undermine the ADA’s purpose of inclusion. Scribd ultimately entered into a settlement with the National Federation of the Blind and agreed to make all of their documents accessible to visually-impaired Americans. [11] While the outcome of this case mirrors that of National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix (2012), the courts’ opinions in their denials of motions is critical in evaluating ADA cases. Both judges agree that because the ADA’s objective is to ensure the full inclusion of Americans with disabilities, the law’s contents must apply to the Internet as it is now a critical component of society. While the ADA does not explicitly address online spaces, both of these cases demonstrate that historical context is more important in interpreting the law than its actual contents. 

The precedents set in these landmark cases protecting those with disabilities has since opened to the door to thousands of lawsuits filed against business for inaccessible websites. [12] Most recently, Guillermo Robles, a blind man, sued Domino’s Pizza because their website was not compatible with screen reading technology. Looking to the settlements in cases filed by the National Association of the Deaf and the National Federation of the Blind, he argued that because Dominos was providing a public service, ordering a pizza, the site must be designed accessible to all. The 9th Circuit Court of the United States ultimately reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Robles’ claim, stating that Dominos’ site is subject to the ADA because it does indeed provide a service of public accommodation, ordering pizzas for delivery. [13] The Supreme Court denied Dominos’ petition to appeal the decision. [14] Meaning, the ADA does apply to any business that provides a service of public accommodation. This service includes anything that is conducted by a business or organization that is publicly accessed such as ordering food or clothing online. Since these services are available through a physical space of public accommodation and are open to the public, the ADA does apply. 

While the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling follows the precedent set in prior cases, Dominos and other corporations have contested the decision due to its possible impacts. In their petition to the Supreme Court, Dominos emphasized that extending the ADA to similar businesses could result in thousands of accessibility lawsuits. The implication would be large legal costs and/or expenses in increasing accessibility of websites for businesses. [15] While this is a legitimate concern, as it could lead to court overcrowding, it does not undercut the arguments in favor of extending the ADA. It will cost businesses money to increase accessibility, which may impact their revenues. However, as the U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia explained, the Internet is an integral part of our daily lives, and people with disabilities should have equal access to the services provided online. [16] Therefore, while businesses may be subject to increased costs, these judicial opinions are consistent with the ADA’s initial intent, reinforcing their legitimacy.

As the Internet continues to expand and the ADA enters into its third decade of existence, legal disputes will inevitably persist regarding the scope of the law. While one proposed solution is to overhaul the legislation as a whole, it is unlikely that that would solve these problems. A 2020 rewrite would not account for 2030 technology, leading the courts to this same responsibility of interpreting the scope of the law each decade. Thus, the best solution is for federal and local courts to maintain jurisdiction in interpreting the law based on its contents, initial intent, and applicability in our modern context. In return, the judiciary will ensure the continued rights of all Americans with disabilities to accessibility and inclusion, in accordance with the development of new technology.

[1] Mayerson, Arlene B, The History of ADA, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (2019), online at https://dredf.org/about-us/publications/the-history-of-the-ada/ (visited November 21, 2019).

[2] Hogeback, Jonathan, Who Invented the Internet?, Encyclopædia Britannica, online at https://www.britannica.com/story/who-invented-the-internet (visited November 12, 2019). 

[3] Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir 2019)

[4] Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC, online at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ada.html (visited November 12, 2019). 

[5] 42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions, Legal Information Institute, online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181 (visited December 4, 2019).

[6] ibid.

[7] Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC, online at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ada.html (visited November 12, 2019). 

[8] National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, 869 F. Supp.2d 196, 200-02 (D. Mass. 2012)

[9] Federal District Court in Massachusetts Makes Precedent-Setting Decision Holding That the Americans with Disabilities Act Applies to Website-Only Businesses, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, online at https://dredf.org/mail-enews/2012/june/netflix-6-19-12.html (visited November 14, 2019).

[10]  National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd, 97 F. Supp. 3d 565, 567 (D. Vt. 2015)

[11] ibid.

[12] Vu, Minh N., Kristina M. Launey, and Susan Ryan, Number of ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed in 2018 Tops 10,000, ADA Title III News and Insights, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2019), online at https://www.adatitleiii.com/2019/01/number-of-ada-title-iii-lawsuits-filed-in-2018-tops-10000/ (visited December 4, 2019).

[13] Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir 2019)

[14] Barnes, Aurora, Domino's Pizza LLC v. Robles, SCOTUSblog, online at https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dominos-pizza-llc-v-robles/ (visited November 14, 2019).

[15] Domino’s Pizza LLC (2019) online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1539/102950/20190613153319483_DominosPetition.pdf (visited December 4, 2019). 

[16] National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd, 97 F. Supp. 3d 565, 567 (D. Vt. 2015)