DOJ's Failure To Provide Effective Guidance on Website Accessibility Requirements Under the ADA Leaves Congress as the Only Option To Address the Problem of Abusive Lawsuits
It is time for Congress to act. In December 2021, the Online Accessibility Act was introduced in the House of Representatives. Unlike the DOJ's largely useless Guidance, the proposed Act recognizes that a predictable regulatory environment is critical for businesses.
April 28, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Over the past five years, businesses with an online presence have been pummeled with lawsuits accusing them of having websites that are supposedly inaccessible to the blind and hearing impaired in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The number of such cases has gradually climbed to a rate of 10 per day, with over 4,000 cases filed in 2021 (quadrupling the number of such cases filed in 2017). The increase is the consequence of a particular void in the law—the absence of any codified achievable standards explaining what's required to have a certifiably "accessible" website. Serial plaintiffs' lawyers have enjoyed an unfair advantage, allowing them to relentlessly pursue "sue and settle" nuisance lawsuits which disproportionately affect small and mid-market companies with low operating margins.
Targeted businesses, which have aggregately paid out millions of dollars in extortive settlement payments, were eagerly waiting for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)—as the agency charged with issuing regulations to carry out the force and effect of ADA—to use its regulatory authority to provide clarity as to what series of steps can be taken to certify a website's accessibility. To their chagrin, on March 18, 2022, the DOJ effectively abstained and, instead of regulating, issued a nonbinding sub-regulatory statement called Web Accessibility Guidance Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which purports to describe how businesses can ensure that their websites are accessible. Unfortunately, it does no such thing. The DOJ's ineffective course makes it all the more important for Congress to step in to curb predatory website accessibility lawsuits.
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in places of "public accommodation." The statute enumerates several accommodations (e.g., restaurants, hotels)—all physical locations—and requires them to meet certain standards of accessibility. Since the ADA predates the Internet, the legislative text imposes no obligation on businesses to make websites accessible. Nevertheless, the DOJ and certain federal courts have stretched the ADA to require websites to be accessible to disabled visitors. While it sounds like a noble goal, the problem is that there is no existing regulatory standard against which to measure accessibility. This stands in sharp contrast to heavily regulated brick and mortar businesses where, for example, every retail store owner knows that it must provide at least one sales counter that is accessible to wheelchair bound customers. Owners also know that to be accessible, a portion of the counter's surface must be at least 36 inches long and no more than 36 inches high. Owners know this because, in carrying out the provisions of the ADA, the DOJ issued the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which are legally binding standards for determining whether a facility is accessible for ADA purposes. Critically, compliance with the ADAAG acts as a safe harbor for a business sued for ADA violations. A physical business facing an ADA lawsuit can defeat that lawsuit prior to trial if an ADA accessibility expert can certify the premises as ADAAG compliant. The law recognizes, as it should, that plaintiff's lawyers cannot rebut undeniable numbers on a tape measure with their own alternative set of facts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readEtsy Welcomed Aboard Ex-Facebook GC Colin Stretch With Baskets of Stock
2 minute readNonpracticing Entity Spikes Patent Infringement Filings in California
'Jackpot' Is Generic Term, 2nd Circuit Panel Rules in Lottery Ticket Sites' Trademark Fight
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
- 2Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 3Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 4When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250