- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
When it comes to accommodating their customers, online entities lacking brick-and-mortar storefronts don’t face the same regulations as physical businesses. While they have no need for access ramps and handicapped-reserved parking spaces, must online businesses still provide special accessibility to those with disabilities?
For some time now, little case law has addressed the issue. In 2006, a court ruled in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. that Target must make its website accessible to the blind. However, it was not clear that the ruling meant the ADA applied online, since the holding appeared to be limited to the context of websites that drive sales at physical retail outlets.
Last week, for the first time, a federal court ruled that the ADA applies to businesses that sell online. In National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc., Judge Ponsor of the District of Massachusetts held that the purposes of the ADA require it to apply equally to internet-based commercial operations. The judge refused to grant Netflix’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that its “Watch Instantly” site is not a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the ADA. Thus, the judge allowed to go forward the plaintiff’s charge that the lack of closed captioning on some of Netflix’s online rentals violates the Act.
Disability rights groups hailed the ruling as ensuring that anti-discrimination laws will continue to apply in our rapidly changing world. Critics, however, fear that the ruling will stifle internet growth, as the technology required to cater to various disabilities is not yet available or is prohibitively expensive, and that fear of litigation will cause sites to avoid innovation that may invite lawsuits. Furthermore, copyright laws restrict streaming content providers’ ability to convert spoken words to text (and vice versa) without a separate license—another factor that may greatly increase costs.
Are these fears overblown? Do public-accommodation laws threaten innovation on the internet? And, even if they do, are those costs justified in order to keep the internet a place that’s equally accessible to all? This is an area of scant law. But, after this ruling we should expect more cases to explore these competing policies.
Recent Blog Posts
- Government Settles in DEA Facebook Impersonation Controversy
- Nickelodeon’s Kids v. Google
- Ivanpah Solar Plant’s Firey Clash of Environmental Objectives
- The Silk Road: An Insight Into the Future of Internet Regulation?
- JETLaw Symposium on Intellectual Property Tomorrow
- San Jose Strikes Out Again in Suit Against MLB
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution