Source: https://lovata.com/blog/ada-website-compliance-lawsuits-recent-and-high-profile.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:07:21+00:00

Document:
While an ADA retaliation claim does not warrant compensatory and punitive damages, lawyers are able to pursue compensation for their client’s legal fees, which may range from such amounts as $25,000 to astonishing digits. The court may also issue an injunction for the defendant to make their website accessible to people with disabilities by a specified date. In other cases, the defendant may be forced to pay a civil penalty.
Most cases end with a settlement agreement between two parties. The agreement may or may not have a requirement to pay a certain amount in damages, but in all cases, the defendant has to ensure its website will be accessible to all individuals by a certain date.
Complications may also include serious losses in terms of defendant’s tainted reputation and customer loyalty.
To this day, many organizations, some of which are well-known corporations with a high reputation and a large, loyal community of customers, suffer from ADA-related lawsuits. Below are the most recent examples.
2018. Bishop v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Defendant: Amazon.com, an American eCommerce and cloud computing company.
Plaintiff: Cedric Bishop, a legally blind Amazon user.
Location: New York Southern District Court.
Amazon.com inaccessibility renders the claimant unable of accessing not only Amazon’s website, but also Whole Foods stores, as Whole Foods is a company recently acquired by Amazon.
Resolution: The claimant wanted Amazon to make its website conform to the ADA and WCAG requirements for it to be accessible to the visually impaired. He sought damages on behalf of himself and all similarly affected individuals. The case was dismissed after the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Defendant: Rolex Watch U.S.A., a subsidiary of Rolex SA, a Swiss luxury watchmaker.
Plaintiff: Braulio Thorne, a visually impaired individual.
Linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems when a screen reader has no content to present the user, namely the purpose and the link’s destination.
Resolution: Braulio Thorne called for a permanent injunction against Rolex Watch for them to take all steps necessary for making its website fully accessible to visually impaired users. The claimant also sought for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for violations of New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest. The parties reached an ADA settlement agreement and the case was voluntarily dismissed.
Defendant: Fox News Network, a United States cable and satellite television news channel owned by Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox.
Plaintiff: Luc Burbon, a visually impaired individual.
Fox News website lacks alternative text, contains linked images with no alt-text telling where the link leads. Empty or redundant links are present that hamper keyboard-based navigation and may cause confusion for visually impaired users.
Resolution: Claimant called for a permanent injunction against Fox News, requiring them to take all steps necessary to make its website fully accessible and conform to accessibility standards. Burbon also sought for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for violations of New York State Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest. The parties reached a website ADA settlement agreement and the case was dismissed.
Defendant: Burger King, one of the largest chains of fast food restaurants.
Plaintiff: Maria Mendizabal, a visually impaired individual.
Specific accessibility barriers that blocked claimants access to the site were a lack of alt text or a text equivalent embedded into graphical images; empty links that cause confusion for users of screen-reading software; redundant links that cause navigation issues and repetition for users of screen-reading software; linked images without alt text to inform the user about the function of the link.
Resolution: Claimant called for a permanent injunction for Burger King to ensure its website accessibility. Case voluntarily dismissed, parties reached a settlement agreement.
2017 - 2018. Maria Mendizabal v. Nike Inc.
Defendant: Nike, an American multinational corporation focused on design and development of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and providing various related services.
Nike websites include empty links without text, redundant links that lead to the same pages as nearby links, images with links that have no alt-text.
Resolution: Claimant was seeking a permanent injunction forcing Nike to update its websites to conform to accessibility standards. Mendizabal was also seeking awards in damages, court costs, attorney fees and pre- & post-judgment interest. The case was dismissed as parties reached a settlement agreement.
Marett v. Armel Tax and Accounting Services.
2017. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Defendant: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., American supermarket chain headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.
Plaintiff: Gil, a blind individual, who had been a customer of the grocery store and its pharmacy chain.
Location: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Claim: 90% of the tabs on the website were not accessible by screen reading software, and claimant couldn’t receive digital coupons, find stores’ locations using tools presented on the site, refill his prescriptions online for in-store pickup or delivery.
Court issued an injunction that required Winn-Dixie Stores to make its website accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals and pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees resulting from the litigation.
Empire Today, Illinois-based home improvement and home furnishing company, specializing in installed carpet, flooring, and window treatments.
Claims: Companies failed to provide accommodations for the visually impaired on their websites.
The exact terms are undisclosed, however, ADA website accessibility settlements required companies to update their online and mobile presence to better accommodate the visually impaired. This includes code fixes and other changes that make websites and apps more compatible with screen reader technology. The cases were filed early 2017 and settled within weeks.
Defendant: Blue Apron, American ingredient-and-recipe meal kit service.
Plaintiff: Access Now on behalf of four blind individuals, an international non-profit, human rights, public policy, and advocacy group dedicated to an open and free Internet.
Location: U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Claim: Blue Apron’s website was not compatible with screen-reader software and, as a result, the blind individuals could not fully use and enjoy Blue Apron’s services.
Resolution: The company tried to dismiss the case, however, the court denied the motion, finding Blue Apron’s website a place of public accommodation, despite the fact that the company operates only online and has no physical shopping locations. The case is pending judgment.
2017. Reed v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc, an online drugstore and pharmacy. Allows to manage prescriptions and shop a wide selection of health, wellness and beauty products.
Plaintiff: Kyla Reed, a blind individual.
Location: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Claim: Blind individuals do not have equal access to the pharmacy's website.
Resolution: Case dismissed by court. This is a particularly interesting case, however, as CVS had faced the same litigations in 2009 and, according to a settlement agreement, was supposed to make their website accessible to persons with disabilities.
2017. Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Defendant: Hobby Lobby Stores, a chain of American arts and crafts stores.
Plaintiff: Sean Gorecki, legally blind individual, JAWS software user.
Location: U.S. District Court for the District of California.
Claims: Website inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.
Resolution: Court ruled that the retailer's website is to be considered a "public accommodation" under the ADA. The court’s comments were that the website allows customers to buy products, search store locations, check for special price offers, receive coupons, and purchase gift cards online. This case is pending its resolution.
Defendant: Domino's Pizza LLC, one of the largest pizza restaurant chains.
Plaintiff: Guillermo Robles, visually impaired individual.
Location: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Claims: Dominos.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA.
Resolution: Case dismissed due to the fact that the DOJ has not yet provided specific regulations regarding website accessibility. The plaintiff, Robles, has filed an appeal and the case is yet to be resolved in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Defendant: Hulu LLC, American subscription video-on-demand service, a joint venture with The Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, Comcast, Time Warner.
Plaintiff: National Association of the Deaf (NAD), a non-profit organization run by Deaf people to advocate for deaf rights.
Claim: Inaccessibility due to lack of closed captions for video content provided on Hulu’s service.
Resolution: ADA lawsuit settlement agreement.
Hulu was to adhere to the Federal Communications Commission's standards for caption quality, and to closed caption all full-length English and Spanish video content by September, 2017. In addition to captioning its content, Hulu also agreed to make content available with captions in other languages on demand.
2016. Gomez v. J. Lindeberg USA, LLC.
Defendant: Lindeberg USA, LLC, a popular fashion and activewear clothing brand.
Plaintiff: Andres Gomez, a Florida resident legally blind individual, user of JAWS screen reading software, a tester who visits public accommodations to locate access barriers covered under the ADA jurisdiction.
Claims: In attempting to visit the website, the plaintiff encountered multiple barriers, including the website's lack of compatibility with his screen reader software.
Resolution: Lindeberg was ordered to undertake immediate remedial measures to make its website accessible to visually impaired people. The clothing brand was also to recover the plaintiff’s attorney fees and other expenses.
Defendant: Bag’n Baggage, a luggage retailer providing luggage and travel bags online from leading brands at discount prices.
Plaintiff: Edward Davis, a blind individual.
Location: Superior Court of the State of California.
Due to the inaccessibility of Bag’n Baggage’s website, blind and visually impaired individuals who use screen reading software can’t effectively browse or shop for products online.
The plaintiff was entitled to a substantial amount in attorney fees.
Defendant: Miami University, a public research university located in Oxford, Ohio.
Plaintiff: Aleeha Dudley, a blind student of Miami University.
Location: District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Claims: Miami University violated the ADA by requiring students with disabilities to use inaccessible websites and LMS software, and by providing them with inaccessible courses.
Meet with every student with disabilities for which he or she requires assistive technologies or special curricular materials, and their instructors, every semester to develop an accessibility plan.
Defendant: Reebok, a global athletic footwear and apparel company, operating as a subsidiary of Adidas.
Plaintiff: Jose Del-Orden, a visually impaired individual.
Location: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Claims: While other major retailers have utilized such accommodations for the visually impaired as alt text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable texts, tables, etc., Reebok has neglected to incorporate these tools for the blind on their website, Reebok.com, thus violating the ADA act.
Defendant: National Basketball Association (NBA).
Plaintiff: Robert Jahoda, a blind individual.
Location: District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Claims: NBA’s website does not comply with ADA accessibility standards and is not accommodating to the blind and visually impaired. Jahoda was not the only one who claimed that the website has serious barriers for people accessing the site via screen reader technology.
Defendant: National Museum of Crime and Punishment (NMCP), an educational resource on law enforcement, crime, and forensic history.
Plaintiff: US Department of Justice (DOJ).
Claims: The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the NMCP’s compliance with title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and found that it failed to make all of its exhibits, public programs and other offerings accessible to individuals with disabilities; failed to provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to ensure efficient interaction with people with disabilities.
NMCP had to ensure that its website conformed to the Level AA Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0).
Claims: Higley Unified School District violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The violations were that the District’s website contained barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally accessing content, especially for people who use assistive technology such as screen readers.
Resolution: Prior to the completion of the investigation, the District voluntarily agreed to resolve this case. ADA settlement agreement.
The district also had to provide website accessibility training for all appropriate personnel, including: content developers, teachers, staff, volunteers, PTA members, webmasters, procurement officials and others responsible for developing, loading, maintaining, or auditing web content and functionality.
Plaintiff: National Association of the Deaf on behalf of four hard-of-hearing individuals, a non-profit organization run by Deaf people to advocate for deaf rights.
Claims: The schools discriminated hard of hearing people as they’ve failed to provide captions for the vast and varied array of online content they make available to the general public, including massive open online courses (MOOCs).
Resolution: On November 4, 2016, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni denied Harvard’s and MIT’s motion to dismiss the closed captioning ADA lawsuit. The case will likely go to court soon.
Defendant: eHarmony, an online dating website.
Plaintiff: Mary West, a blind individual.
Claims: eHarmony violated state and federal law by failing to build a website that is compatible with accessibility technology: the site used pop-up forms and images without alternative text. Blind users of the site could not have proper access to it without someone’s help.
Defendant: Bank of America, a multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Plaintiff: Ashley Cwikla, a visually impaired individual.
Claims: Lack of accessibility of Bank of America Credit Card Rewards Redemption Solutions available to Bank of America customers on their website.
Bank of America was to conduct training for appropriate Bank of America and/or third party customer service telephone staff to enable persons being trained to assist the visually impaired clients of Bank of America.
Plaintiff: Access Now Inc. on behalf of three visually impaired individuals, an international non-profit, human rights, public policy, and advocacy group dedicated to an open and free Internet.
Claims: Ace Hardware's website was not designed with the accommodations necessary for visually impaired individuals.
Resolution: The plaintiffs seek compensation for all legal fees and damages suffered. Case is pending resolution.
The following are the most significant website accessibility cases from the past. Companies, from small to large-scale corporations, have suffered from ADA website compliance lawsuits and litigations for over a decade now.
Claims: Lack of accessibility of student loan information presented on the website.
US Dept of Education had to provide documents in alternative formats such as Braille and large print. They were also required to allow visually-impaired people to fill out, sign and submit accessible versions of student loan forms and applications.
Defendant: Safeway, American supermarket grocery chain.
Claims: Safeway failed to ensure that their eCommerce Webpages and Safeway Mobile Optimized Webpages are fully accessible to the visually impaired.
Safeway was also to provide training and technical support for all personnel involved in providing customers with Safeway eCommerce services and mobile optimized webpages.
Defendant: HRB Digital LLC, one of the largest tax return preparers in the United States that offers a wide range of services online via website and mobile apps. Services include professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation, instructional videos, office location information, interactive live video conference and chat with tax pros, online and in-store services and electronic tax-return filing.
Location: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The website had issues with keyboard navigation and captioning which are serious impediments for people with disabilities.
H&R Block was to pay $45,000 to the two individual plaintiffs, and a $55,000 civil penalty.
Defendant: Netflix, video-on-demand and online streaming provider.
Claims: Netflix violated title III of the ADA by failing to provide adequate closed captioning on “Watch Instantly” streaming video programming.
Pay $755 000 to plaintiffs' lawyers involved in the accessibility lawsuit, as well as $40 000 for the decree to be executed in the next four years.
Defendant: Walt Disney, American diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate, which also has theme parks, resorts and destinations across the globe, represented on its websites.
Claims: The Disney sites were overloaded with video and audio content which could not be turned off by physically impaired people and drowned out screen-reading technology. Websites contained Flash content that is also inaccessible to blind persons. The claimants stated that Disney simply hadn’t addressed the needs of people who are visually impaired and failed to provide accommodations for those individuals on their web resources.
Resolution: Website ADA settlement agreement.
Disney was also to pay up to $1 550 000 in attorney fees and costs.
Defendant: Charles Schwab, a bank and brokerage firm, based in San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff: Kit Lau, a visually impaired individual.
Claims: Charles Schwab website had accessibility issues that prevented visually impaired people from accessing content.
The company adopted Level AA WCAG 2.0 web accessibility standards.
2010 US Department of Justice v. Hilton Worldwide Inc.
Defendant: Hilton Hotels & Resorts, global brand of full-service hotels and resorts and the flagship brand of Hilton.
Claims: While conducting an investigation the Department of Justice found that individuals with disabilities were facing serious barriers while accessing the hilton.com website and trying to reserve an accessible room using the internet reservations system.
According to the agreement, no later than August 30, 2011, Hilton was required to reconstruct the www.hilton.com website and ensure the websites for the brands that are constructed on the www.hilton.com domain would comply with the Worldwide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.0, Level A success criteria.
Defendant: Staples, an American multinational office supply retailing corporation.
Claims: The www.Staples.com website was inaccessible to visually impaired people.
Staples were to use good faith efforts to ensure that all pages of www.Staples.com would substantially comply with the priority one and two checkpoints of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) by no later than June 30, 2009. This was before the introduction of WCAG 2.0, therefore Staples had the opportunity to choose either version 1.0 or 2.0 of WCAG after supersession. If WCAG 2.0 would be selected, according to the agreement, Staples would have to meet conformance level AA.
Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, a subsidiary of the American retail and healthcare company CVS Health.
Claims: Certain inaccessible features and content on CVS.com violated Public Accommodation Laws.
CVS had to appoint an outside consultant that had already been approved by the claimants to audit CVS.com for WCAG compliance. The consultant was to provide a written report regarding the findings from the audit.
Defendant: Target Corporation, the second-largest discount store retailer in the United States, behind Walmart.
Claims: Target’s website suffered from a lack of “alt” tags throughout the site, which are used by screen readers to assist disabled users in navigating the website.
Pay up to $15,000 of the costs of NFB's costs per session for Target personnel accessibility design training.
Defendant: Rite Aid, a drugstore chain in the United States and a Fortune 500 company.
Claims: In or about June 2005, several organizations contacted Rite Aid raising concerns about its website, riteaid.com in terms of accessibility.
Resolution: As a result of a series of discussions, the parties reached an ADA lawsuit settlement agreement.
Rite Aid to ensure that all pages of their riteaid.com website substantially complied with Level AA of WCAG 1.0 accessibility standards by December 31, 2007, and that all pages of riteaidhealthsolutions.com, which can be accessed via a link on riteaid.com, also comply with Conformance Level AA of WCAG 1.0 by February 29, 2008. This was before WCAG 1.0 was superseded by version 2.0, therefore in the case when W3C introduces WCAG 2.0 Rite Aid had the opportunity to choose between version 1.0 and 2.0 compliance.
J.C. Penney and many others.
Private organizations aren’t the only ones affected by the website accessibility trends, below is a list of state, county and city websites that underwent ADA investigations by the Department of Justice over the years.
All of these cases ended with parties entering ADA website accessibility settlements in order to avoid serious litigation.
Blemished company reputation and corporate identity, that may lead to losing customers.
All of the above mentioned cases show that ADA website accessibility and compliance with WCAG 2.1 standards is an issue that must not be taken lightly. Developing an ADA compliant website can prove to be a smart investment in the future to avoid all the nuisance.
ADA Website Compliance Checklist. Accessibility Guidelines.
You can also contact us if you require accessibility web development or ADA web accessibility audit services.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.