Source: https://www.wlf.org/2018/09/21/publishing/the-americans-with-disabilities-act-and-cyberspace-who-will-provide-sorely-needed-guidance/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:01:13+00:00

Document:
The Americans with Disabilities Act and Cyberspace: Who Will Provide Sorely Needed Guidance?
By John D. McMickle, co-founder of North South Government Strategies, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm. He was previously a Judiciary Committee Counsel for Senator Charles Grassley and a Partner with Winston & Strawn, LLP.
The ADA is currently the subject of controversy over whether it regulates not only physical places, but virtual ones as well. Substantial confusion currently prevails on this question. This paper will explain how the confusion has spawned a cottage industry of private litigation under the ADA that neither furthers the policy objective of increased access for the disabled nor provides clear and consistent standards for stakeholders, including businesses. The paper concludes that the best chance for definitive, national guidance lies not with the courts or with the law’s implementing agency—the Department of Justice (DOJ)—but through legislative amendment.
Litigation under Title III imposes costs on business owners in the form of attorneys’ fees (under the law’s fee-shifting provision) and regulatory compliance. A recent multi-sector review by business associations is revealing as to the scope and cost of Title III website litigation. On average, business have payed from $10,000 to $60,000 to settle lawsuits or respond to demand letters. In some cases, businesses have paid up to $90,000. Given the explosion of website-related ADA litigation, payments should be expected to increase in coming years. Of note, the first chart below shows that restaurants, retailers, and financial services firms are frequent targets for such lawsuits. The second chart demonstrates that ADA litigation affects virtually every state.
The ADA contains various sections governing employment, government services, and, relevant here, public accommodations. The statute defines, in some detail, the term “public accommodation” at 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). That definition provides little insight on whether Title III applies to websites. It is highly specific and does not use terms that can be interpreted more or less broadly depending on circumstances in a particular court case. Also, the statute lists as examples only physical spaces—not surprising given that Congress passed the law before the development of the World Wide Web.
The ADA’s operative mandate provides that no “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 by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12812 (emphasis added). Unlike the public-accommodation definition, the mandate utilizes broader terms that could apply to unforeseen circumstances such as the World Wide Web.
Considering the definition of public accommodation and the ADA’s mandate, therefore, is a website a service, advantage, or privilege of a physical place? A restaurant, bank branch, or retail establishment is clearly a public accommodation. If these establishments advertise or take reservations through a website, is that website covered under Title III—not because the website itself is a public accommodation (unlikely based on the legal definition) but because it is a related service or advantage?
All branches of the federal government are capable of clarifying if and when businesses’ websites constitute places of public accommodation under the ADA. The federal courts, however, can only decide cases presented to them, and as has happened with website-related ADA suits, such a case-by-case approach to interpreting a law will inevitably lead to conflicting outcomes. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can set down a uniform interpretation on this ADA question, and that path is lengthy and uncertain.
Congress had an opportunity to address the applicability of the ADA to websites when it amended the law in 2008 and failed to do so. Courts could perhaps infer from that inaction that Congress did not intend for websites to be covered under the ADA. The conflicting decisions of the past few years, however, indicate that at least some judges have been unwilling to make that inference.
If Congress were to draft an entirely new law meant to promote access to public accommodations for the disabled, it would undoubtedly consider applying the law to websites. Members had no reason to introduce websites into its debates in the late 1980s when the ADA was being crafted and finalized. Technological change, however, has exposed an unforeseen gap in the law.
Congress can end the confusion by amending Title III so it explicitly covers websites and require DOJ to issue guidelines defining website accessibility. To balance the equities for all stakeholders, Congress could place a temporary moratorium on enforcement of Title III against websites, allowing businesses time to fully comply. In addition, given the complexity of computer coding, Congress could specify that minor or de minimis errors do not violate the ADA. Commercial websites that update frequently to advertise changes in prices or interest rates, for instance, should not be subject to abusive litigation if the updates are not immediately compliant.
Such an outcome respects the democratic process and would provide much needed certainty for all stakeholders—the disabled, the business community and the general public. The status quo, regulation by litigation, produces uneven results and is not the optimal way to ensure that the disabled have full access to the World Wide Web.
See Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, July 23, 2015.
See Presidential Proclamation on the Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2018.
See John D. McMickle, ‘Drive-by’ Lawsuits under Disabilities Statute Costing Economy, The Hill (Nov. 13, 2017), (estimating the amount businesses will pay to attorneys over a 10-year period would be close to a half-billion dollars); see also Walter K. Olson, The ADA Shakedown Racket, City J.
See, e.g., Examining Legislation to Promote the Effective Enforcement of the ADA’s Public Accommodation Provisions, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong., 2d Sess. (May 19, 2106)(“Unfortunately, enterprising plaintiffs and their lawyers have abused the law by filing a flurry of ADA lawsuits aimed at churning out billable hours and extracting money from small businesses rather than improving access for the disabled, as the ADA intended.”)(Statement of Subcommittee Chairman); see also HR 620, 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (2017).
See Minh N. Vu et al., Website Access and Other ADA Title III Lawsuits Hit Record Numbers, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (July 17, 2018).
Joshua Briones and Nicole Ozeran, INSIGHT: A Mid-Year Review of the Current State of ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits, BNA, Aug. 16, 2018; see also Haynes v. Dunkin Donuts LLC, 18-0370 (11th Cir. July 31, 2018)(unpublished opinion).
See John O’Brien, Lawyers Awarded $100K after Historic Verdict for Blind Internet Users; Winn-Dixie Appealing, Forbes.com, Oct. 2, 2017.
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 956 (N.D. Cal 2006).
880 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
See Bob Egelko, Netflix May Have to Provide Closed Captions Online, S.F. Chron., June 22, 2012.
Andrews v. Black Art Materials, 286 F. Supp. 3d 381, 396 (E.D. N.Y. 2017).
Carroll v. BAN Federal Credit Union, No. 2:17-cv-521 slip. op. at 4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2018).
Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, 2017 WL 1330216 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017). This case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
See 75 Fed. Reg. 43460 (July 26, 2010).
See Letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Sept. 4, 2018.
© 2019 WLF All Rights Reserved.

References: § 12181
 § 12812
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.