See If Your Website Meets ADA Standards – Free Audit
Landmark case: Gil v. Winn-Dixie (2017)
- Plaintiff: A blind customer who used screen-reading software to browse the Winn-Dixie website.
- The lawsuit: The plaintiff claimed that the Winn-Dixie website, which was heavily integrated with its physical stores for functions like locating pharmacies and accessing coupons, was inaccessible to him. The site’s incompatibility with his screen reader constituted a violation of ADA Title III.
- Outcome: A Florida federal court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, declaring the website was a “gateway” to the physical stores and therefore a place of public accommodation. The court ordered Winn-Dixie to make its site compliant with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA standards. While the trial court’s decision was later overturned on appeal, the initial ruling was a landmark victory that spurred a wave of ADA website accessibility litigation.
Supreme Court appeal: Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Robles (2019)
- Plaintiff: A blind man sued Domino’s, alleging its website and mobile app were not accessible with his screen-reading software.
- The lawsuit: Domino’s argued that because the ADA does not explicitly provide technical standards for websites, it should not be applied to online services. A federal court initially agreed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the ADA’s requirements for public accommodations applied to the company’s online properties.
- Outcome: Domino’s appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. This left the Ninth Circuit’s ruling intact, effectively upholding the standard that websites and apps must be accessible under the ADA. The case demonstrated that businesses could not wait for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue specific guidelines and that WCAG is the de facto standard.
Online-only business: Access Now, Inc. v. Blue Apron (2017)
- Plaintiff: Accessibility advocacy organization Access Now sued Blue Apron on behalf of visually impaired plaintiffs.
- The lawsuit: The plaintiffs claimed that Blue Apron’s website, which was its sole point of business, was not compatible with screen readers. Blue Apron moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that because it lacked a physical store, the ADA did not apply.
- Outcome: A U.S. District Judge disagreed and refused to dismiss the case. The court ruled that even online-only businesses have an obligation under the ADA to provide accessible content. The case was later settled, and Blue Apron agreed to make its website more accessible.
Government intervention: National Federation of the Blind v. H&R Block (2014)
- Plaintiff: The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and two individuals filed a lawsuit against H&R Block.
- The lawsuit: The plaintiffs alleged that the tax preparation company’s website and mobile apps were inaccessible to users with various disabilities. This was a landmark case because the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose to intervene directly in the private lawsuit.
- Outcome: H&R Block entered into a consent decree with the DOJ and the plaintiffs. The company was required to fix accessibility issues according to WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards, provide accessibility training for its employees, and pay $100,000 in damages.
Mass litigation: Targeted state and local municipalities (2018)
- Plaintiff: A legally blind Miami resident filed numerous lawsuits against municipalities in Florida and elsewhere.
- The lawsuit: The plaintiff targeted government agencies whose websites were not accessible to users with vision disabilities, specifically citing inaccessible documents.
- Outcome: Multiple Florida counties, including Orange County and Palm Beach County, settled lawsuits by agreeing to make their websites accessible and paying settlements to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees and damages. This trend highlighted the vulnerability of municipalities to accessibility lawsuits, a risk that was later clarified by the DOJ’s 2024 final rule requiring state and local government websites to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards.