Source: https://www.swflbusinessandipblog.com/2017/09/company-websites-under-attack-ada-title-iii-expanding-to-the-internet/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:45:17+00:00

Document:
Local trends are favoring the plaintiffs. The Eleventh Circuit’s most informative case ironically does not involve a website. In Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Ltd., ABC, 294 F. 3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002), the Eleventh Circuit ruled on a challenge to the qualification requirements for the hit game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” A class of disabled individuals challenged the telephonic “fast finger” selection process that served as the initial barrier to trying out for the game show. The Court, in reversing dismissal, held that even though the telephonic process was not itself a place of public accommodation, it is a covered “intangible barrier” to enjoyment of a place of public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).
Since Rendon, Florida District Courts examining challenges to company websites had, for the most part, roundly rejected the notion that websites in and of themselves are places of public accommodation. See Kidwell v. Florida Commission on Human Relations, 2017 WL 176897 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2017) (“Neither Busch Gardens’ nor SeaWorld’s online website is a physical or public accommodation under the ADA); Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (Internet website not a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA) (J. Seitz).
However, the analysis does not end there. Florida’s federal Courts have mostly held, alternatively, that a website may be eligible for coverage under Title III of the ADA if a plaintiff establishes a sufficient nexus between the website and access to or enjoyment of the physical spaces with which a website is associated. See Gomez v. Bang & Olufsen America, Inc., 2017 WL 1957182, *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2017) (a website that is wholly unconnected to a physical location is generally not a place of public accommodation unless plaintiff alleges that a website’s inaccessibility impedes the plaintiff’s access to a specific, physical, concrete space and establishes some nexus between the website and the physical lace of public accommodation).
What constitutes a nexus between a company website and the physical structure(s) at which the companies transact business?
Companies naturally look to load as much useful content as possible to a website. In fact, most companies now offer e-commerce directly from their website. If the website is not itself a place of public accommodation, is a non-compatible website that offers direct shopping options a barrier to a disabled individual’s ability to enjoy the company’s physical structure?
A recent Southern District of Florida opinion, Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 2017 WL 2547242 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 12, 2017), took a broad view of “nexus,” finding that as long as lack of access to a company website denies disabled individuals the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation,” it violates Title III of the ADA. Id. at *7. Among the privileges noted on the company website at issue, that of a grocery store chain, included “online pharmacy management,” access to “digital coupons,” and “store hours and locations.” Id.
While individual District Court opinions are not binding on other District Court judges, the Gil ruling is troublesome for companies. Virtually any company website contains at minimum, store or office locations and hours of operation. Also, based on the typical ADA Title III case, companies have little incentive to rely on the courts’ interpretation of this vague “nexus” standard. As referenced above, ADA Title III claims do not involve damage claims, just attorney’s fees.
Companies defending lawsuits face a Hobson’s Choice– 1) spend now to correct the alleged deficiency and minimize the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees; or 2) expend attorney’s fees and expert fees to defend the claim, risking a negative outcome requiring the company to make the demanded changes and to pay voluminous attorney’s fees. This reality, plus a weak standard, disincentivizes a vigorous defense.
Companies are wise to be proactive and to update websites to be compatible with software that enables Internet use for the visual and hearing impaired. If not, litigation with no easily definable “win” appears imminent.
If you have any questions, please contact me at csalner@cspalaw.com or by phone at 305-347-3124. You may also contact Gail Lamarche, Henderson Franklin’s Director of Marketing and Business Development at gail.lamarche@henlaw.com or by phone at 239-344-1186.

References: v. 
 § 12182
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.