The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has often been described as the most sweeping nondiscrimination legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It provides broad nondiscrimination protection in employment, public services, public accommodations, and services operated by private entities, transportation, and telecommunications for individuals with disabilities. As stated in the act, its purpose is "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." However, the ADA, enacted on July 26, 1990, prior to widespread use of the Internet, does not specifically cover the Internet, and the issue of coverage has not been definitively resolved. The Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, and lower court decisions have varied in how they have approached the ADA and the Internet. Similarly, congressional action has been limited. The ADA was amended in 2008 to respond to a series of Supreme Court decisions that had interpreted the definition of disability narrowly but did not address the issue of Internet coverage. On April 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the ADA in the digital age. On July 23, 2010, the Department of Justice issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking which would require Internet accessibility for individuals with disabilities. On October 8, 2010, President Obama signed the Equal Access to 21 st Century Communications Act, P.L. 111-260 . Although this law does not amend the ADA, it requires, in part, certain access to Internet-based services and equipment for individuals with disabilities. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) also did not specifically mention Internet accessibility, but did include the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act as part of P.L. 111-5 , and also directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a national broadband plan. The FCC released its plan on March 16, 2010. One of the recommendations in this plan stated: The federal government should ensure the accessibility of digital content. The DOJ should amend its regulations to clarify the obligations of commercial establishments under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to commercial websites. The FCC should open a proceeding on the accessibility of video programming distributed over the Internet, the devices used to display such programming and related user interfaces, video programming guides and menus. Congress should consider clarifying the FCC's authority to adopt video description rules. The ADA contains various requirements depending on whether the discrimination prohibited is in the employment context (Title I), is related to the activities of state or local governments (Title II), or concerns public accommodations (Title III). Although most of the judicial decisions and discussion of ADA applicability to the Internet have arisen regarding public accommodations, it is helpful to briefly examine employment and state and local government requirements. Title I of the ADA, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, provides that no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability with regard to job application procedures; the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees; employee compensation; job training; or other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The term employer is defined as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees. If the issue raised under the ADA is employment related, and the threshold issues of an individual with a disability and an employer as defined by the ADA are met, the next step is to determine whether the individual is a qualified individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job. Title I defines a "qualified individual with a disability." Such an individual is "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such person holds or desires." The ADA requires the provision of reasonable accommodation unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. "Reasonable accommodation" is defined in the ADA as including making existing facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment of examinations or training materials or policies, provision of qualified readers or interpreters, or other similar accommodations. "Undue hardship" is defined as "an action requiring significant difficulty or expense." Factors to be considered in determining whether an action would create an undue hardship include the nature and cost of the accommodation, the overall financial resources of the facility, the overall financial resources of the covered entity, and the type of operation or operations of the covered entity. The ADA's statutory language specifically prohibits discrimination in "other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." The National Council on Disability (NCD) has observed that "[n]o case or serious scholarly or legal argument has ever been found to support the proposition that because a job's functions involve electronic communication, employers are relieved of the obligation to consider reasonable accommodations or other measures aimed at facilitating equal access to the tools of the trade." However, no judicial cases were found that specifically mandated website accessibility in the employment context. Despite this dearth of case law, it could be argued that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) policies on telework, which is generally performed using computers, indicate that employment discrimination may encompass lack of access to the Internet. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. "Public entity" is defined as state and local governments, any department or other instrumentality of a state or local government and certain transportation authorities. The ADA does not apply to the executive branch of the federal government; the executive branch and the U.S. Postal Service are covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations for Title II contain a specific section on program accessibility. Each service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity, when viewed in its entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. However, a public entity is not required to make each of its existing facilities accessible. Program accessibility is limited in certain situations involving historic preservation. In addition, in meeting the program accessibility requirement, a public entity is not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. Like Title I, the case law and regulatory interpretations regarding the application of the ADA to the Internet are sparse under Title II. However, one district court has examined accessibility issues regarding the website of a public transit system. In Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tr ansit Authority , the court addressed a number of accessibility issues involving the Atlanta transit authority, including information accessibility. Noting that the information was available in several forms, including a website, the court found that the information was not equally accessible to individuals with disabilities even though some information was available by telephone. The court stated the following: MARTA representatives also concede that the system's web page is not formatted in such a way that it can be read by persons who are blind but who are capable of using text reader computer software for the visually impaired.... However, it now appears that MARTA is attempting to correct this problem. Until these deficiencies are corrected, MARTA is violating the ADA mandate of "making adequate communications capacity available, through accessible formats and technology, to enable users to obtain information and schedule service." On July 23, 2010, the Department of Justice issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that would require Internet accessibility. In the April 2010 hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, testified that "[t]here is no doubt that the Internet sites of State and local government entities are covered by Title II of the ADA." He also noted that DOJ has published technical assistance, "Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities," which provides guidance for making government websites accessible. The concept of effective communications has also been at issue in investigations by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education (ED) since the 1990s. These OCR and ED investigations involved access to various class and course related materials, including campus computer labs and the Internet, and generally resulted in required access. Title III 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. Entities that are covered by the term "public accommodation" are listed, and include, among others, hotels, restaurants, theaters, auditoriums, laundromats, travel services, museums, parks, zoos, private schools, day care centers, professional offices of health care providers, and gymnasiums. Religious institutions or entities controlled by religious institutions are not included on the list. There are some limitations on the nondiscrimination requirements, and a failure to remove architectural barriers is not a violation unless such a removal is "readily achievable." "Readily achievable" is defined as meaning "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense." Reasonable modifications in practices, policies, or procedures are required unless they would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, or privileges or they would result in an undue burden. An undue burden is defined as an action involving "significant difficulty or expense." The Department of Justice on July 23, 2010, issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking which would require Internet accessibility under the ADA.