Public Accommodation Law: Does It Extend To The Internet?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990 to outline the rights of Americans with disabilities and prohibit ability-based discrimination in the private sector. However, the legislation did not account for the internet, as it was not widely used at the time. This has led to ongoing debates and lawsuits regarding whether websites are considered places of public accommodation under the ADA. While some courts have interpreted the ADA to pertain only to physical spaces, others have argued that the law should evolve with technology and include online spaces. As the internet continues to play an increasingly integral role in daily life, the question of whether public accommodation laws apply to the internet remains a complex and evolving legal issue.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

While the ADA does not specifically mention the internet or websites, recent court cases have extended its reach to online spaces. For example, in National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix (2012), Netflix was sued for not providing closed captions, and the federal district court ruled that the ADA applied to online services. Similarly, in National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd (2015), Scribd was sued for having a website incompatible with screen reader technology, and the court denied Scribd's motion to dismiss, stating that excluding disabled individuals from online platforms would undermine the ADA's purpose of inclusion.

These cases set a precedent for interpreting the ADA in the context of evolving technology and society, ensuring that businesses providing services to the public, including online services, comply with the ADA to guarantee equal access for individuals with disabilities.

Title III of the ADA

The ADA was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990, and became effective on January 26, 1992, with the publication of its regulations six months prior. The law is designed to provide comprehensive civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination and ensuring their inclusion in all aspects of public life.

With the advent of the internet and digital technologies, the question of whether Title III of the ADA applies to online spaces has arisen. Courts have considered the applicability of the ADA to websites and online services, with diverging opinions. Some courts have held that Title III applies only to physical locations, while others have argued that websites with a nexus to a physical location or those providing public services may also be considered public accommodations under the ADA.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also considered the issue, proposing in 2010 to amend its regulations to explicitly include websites and online services as places of public accommodation under Title III. This proposal aimed to ensure that websites providing products or services to the public are accessible to individuals with disabilities. The proposal highlighted previous affirmations of Title III's applicability to websites, such as in the case of Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods.

The ongoing legal debate surrounding the applicability of Title III to the internet underscores the evolving nature of public accommodation laws in the digital age. As technology advances and businesses increasingly operate online, the judiciary must continue to interpret and adapt public accommodation laws to ensure equal access and non-discrimination for individuals with disabilities in all spheres, including the virtual realm.

Websites as places of public accommodation

The question of whether websites are places of public accommodation has been the subject of much debate and litigation in recent years. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in accessing goods and services in places of public accommodation. However, the ADA does not explicitly address whether websites are included in this definition. This has led to a split in opinion among federal courts, with some arguing that the ADA only applies to physical structures, while others take a broader view and argue that websites can also be considered places of public accommodation.

The courts that take a narrower view, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have held that websites are not physical locations and therefore cannot be considered places of public accommodation under the ADA. These courts interpret the ADA as pertaining only to "actual, physical places." This interpretation has provided a defence for Internet-only businesses that have been sued for non-compliance with the ADA.

However, several federal courts, including those in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, have taken a broader interpretation of the ADA. These courts have concluded that "places of public accommodation" under the ADA are not limited to physical structures. This means that even websites of companies without any physical locations would be required to comply with the ADA. For example, in Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, the court held that the ADA improved the lives of disabled Americans by reducing their isolation and segregation from society. The court argued that excluding websites from the definition of public accommodation would be a "cruel irony" that would render the ADA obsolete just as its objective is increasingly within reach.

Additionally, some courts have adopted a "nexus approach," which falls between the narrow and broad interpretations. Under this approach, websites may be considered public accommodations if there is a connection between the website and a physical location that falls under one of the categories enumerated in the ADA. For example, in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, a California court held that the plaintiffs stated a viable claim when they alleged that the inaccessibility of Target's website impeded their full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in physical Target stores.

The lack of clear guidance from the courts and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has resulted in a significant increase in litigation surrounding website compliance with the ADA. Businesses with facilities open to the public that maintain a website and have a broad geographic presence face a patchwork of liability based on the location of any given plaintiff. To reduce the risk of litigation, businesses should ensure their websites comply with industry standards for accessibility, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

Compliance and accessibility

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush, following the disability rights movement of the 1960s. The ADA's primary objective is to outline the rights of Americans with disabilities and prohibit ability-based discrimination in the private sector.

While the ADA is one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws in the US, it does not explicitly address the internet or online spaces, as web use was not widespread when the law was drafted. This lack of clarity has led to ongoing debates and legal disputes about whether the ADA's provisions on public accommodations apply to websites and online platforms.

The term "public accommodation" is generally defined as facilities or places, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the general public. This includes a wide range of entities, such as retail stores, rental establishments, service establishments, educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

The issue of whether websites fall under the definition of "public accommodations" has been the subject of much discussion and litigation. Some courts have interpreted "public accommodations" narrowly, limiting it to physical structures or places with a physical presence. This interpretation suggests that if a business operates solely online without any physical locations, it is not subject to the ADA's accessibility requirements.

However, several federal courts have adopted a broader interpretation, arguing that "public accommodations" are not limited to physical spaces. These courts have held that websites, even those without a connection to a physical location, can be considered "public accommodations" under the ADA. They emphasize that the ADA was intended to evolve with technological advancements and societal changes.

The lack of uniform guidelines and the split among court decisions have created uncertainty for businesses. While some businesses argue that the costs of accessibility and legal fees are burdensome, advocates for disabled individuals stress the importance of equal access and inclusion.

To comply with the ADA and reduce legal risks, businesses should strive to make their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities. This includes ensuring compatibility with assistive technologies used by visually or hearing-impaired individuals, such as screen readers or closed captions.

Additionally, businesses can refer to industry standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, which provide a detailed framework for making websites accessible to individuals with various disabilities. By following these guidelines, businesses can take proactive steps to enhance accessibility and avoid potential lawsuits.

As technology continues to advance and shape our daily lives, the legal landscape surrounding public accommodations and website accessibility will likely continue to evolve. A pivotal moment will be when the issue is addressed by the US Supreme Court, which has not yet happened. Until then, businesses must navigate the varying interpretations and requirements across different jurisdictions.

Discrimination and inclusion

The ADA, enacted in 1990, did not account for the internet as it was in its infancy at the time. The lack of explicit inclusion of online spaces in the legislation has led to a debate about whether websites are required to be ADA-compliant. While businesses argue the costs of accessibility and legal fees, advocates for disability rights push for a more inclusive interpretation of the law. They contend that the intention of the ADA was to ensure full inclusion, and with the internet playing a critical role in society, it should be considered a place of public accommodation.

The judicial system has been tasked with interpreting the scope of the ADA in the digital age. Landmark cases, such as National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix (2012) and National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd (2015), have set precedents by ruling that the ADA should evolve with technological advancements. These cases established that online services provided to the public must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, regardless of whether the business has a physical location. However, there is still a split among federal courts, with some interpreting "place of public accommodation" narrowly to include only physical structures.

The implications of these differing interpretations are significant. Businesses with websites that are not ADA-compliant risk facing lawsuits from individuals with disabilities who are unable to access their goods and services. On the other hand, businesses argue that extending the ADA to cover all websites could result in high compliance costs and legal fees. While there is no clear consensus, it is crucial to strike a balance between ensuring inclusion and minimizing the burden on businesses.

To promote inclusion and accessibility, businesses should strive to make their websites compatible with assistive technologies used by individuals with disabilities. This can be achieved by following industry standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which provide detailed frameworks for website accessibility. By taking proactive measures, businesses can reduce the risk of litigation and contribute to a more inclusive digital world.

Frequently asked questions