Courts Must Welcome the Reality of the Modem World: Cyberspace Is a PlaceUnder Title III of the Americanswith Disabilities Act

1. IntroductionIn September 2006, disabled individuals in the United States achieved a small victory towards equal access when the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)1 applies to websites that have a nexus with a physical place of public accommodation.2 The victory, however, was bittersweet. The ruling only gives disabled individuals a valid claim for accessibility against websites with a nexus to a physical place, but the ruling does not give a similar claim against online-only websites, such as Amazon.com.3 In light of the massive expansion of websites, virtual worlds, and businesses that operate solely over the internet, the digital divide between the disabled and nondisabled will only increase if courts do not recognize that cyberspace is a "place" under Title III ofthe ADA.Title III ofthe ADA only applies to a "place" of public accommodation.4 Congress enacted Title III to enhance the equality of treatment and the availability of products and services for persons with disabilities.5 Nevertheless, legal academics and advocates for the disabled so far have failed to convince the courts that the Act should apply to the online world that has no connection to the physical world.6 Requiring websites to be accessible only when the website has a nexus to a physical place will encourage businesses to move everything online or to separate completely the online portion of their business to avoid compliance with Title III. Instead of promoting equal participation of disabled individuals in society, application of the nexus approach will deny the disabled access to the wealth of opportunity and services of the online world.On the other hand, a modern understanding of the concept of "place" to include the internet would comport with common sense and the underlying purpose of Title III. A place is a space to which one goes or which one occupies.7 Before the invention and use of the internet and virtual worlds, a place could be thought of only as a physical area.8 The increase in internet usage and the growth of virtual worlds have changed the traditional perception of a place. Now, a person can enjoy many of the same activities online that he would in a physical place, like shopping, chatting with friends, earning a college degree, reading the news, and even watching television shows. The internet is designed to be used as a place, is used as a place, and individuals think of the internet as a place. Thus, courts must take action to recognize that websites that do not have a nexus with a physical place can be interpreted as "places" of public accommodation under Title ??.Concerns in the legal community about the feasibility of requiring websites to be accessible, and the power of the courts to interpret "place" in this manner are unjustified. Congress already requires that all federal government websites be accessible to individuals with disabilities.10 Other countries have also begun to require that private websites comply with accessibility standards." Thus, it is possible to make private websites accessible, and the federal government's accessibility standards can serve as an initial guide for private websites. Moreover, requiring websites to be accessible is subject to a standard of reasonableness and when an undue burden would result, the Act does not require modifications.12Interpreting the term "place" in light of the purpose of Title III and changing technology is also within the powers of the court. It is even preferable that the judiciary act instead of Congress because any legislation by Congress carries with it a possible limitation of application to current technology, and the applicability of Title III to future "places" will then resurface. To prevent further isolation of disabled individuals from mainstream society, this Note argues that courts must recognize that the internet can be a place of public accommodation under Title III and require that private websites be accessible to the disabled. …