In what world do we put Beyoncé, Domino’s Pizza and PornHub in the same sentence? Answer: They all got sued recently for allegedly not having a website that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In January 2019, a blind woman from New York sued Beyoncé Knowles’ company, Parkwood Entertainment. The plaintiff claimed Beyonce.com did not provide required accommodations for those with visual impairments. She said that Beyonce’s website presented barriers to blind people who used screen readers. The claimed barriers also included the absence of “alt text” (text describing an image read aloud to blind users by screen-reader software), accessible drop-down menus that allow those with visual impairments to click through the website, and keyboard access, which prevents screen-reading software from tabbing from page to page throughout the website.
In a landmark 2019 case, Guillermo Robles, a blind man, sued Domino’s Pizza because he couldn’t order food on Domino’s website or mobile app. Mr. Robles won on the theory that Domino’s restaurants, clearly places of public accommodation, must offer all their services—including web ordering—to all of their customers. Robles claimed that Domino’s website didn’t allow his screen-reading software to customize pizza orders and wouldn’t provide online discounts made available to others. Robles won. Domino’s appealed and lost. The United States Supreme Court refused to take the case, leaving Mr. Robles’ victory intact.
On January 16, 2020, Brooklyn resident Yaroslav Suris sued Pornhub because it failed to provide subtitles for its full “Premium” library of porn. Again, the lawsuit alleges that porn sites are places of public accommodation. Further, Suris claimed that the hearing-impaired should get the same rich and edifying experience that all able-bodied people enjoy.
Everybody’s getting their own invitation for a front-row seat in court—Winn-Dixie, Fox News Network, Burger King, Nike, Blue Apron, CVS Pharmacy, and Hobby Lobby store. Even Harvard (yes, that one). More are expected.
Everybody’s better for it. But for many people nowadays, access to Google or YouTube or Wikipedia or Amazon is just as important as ramps and wider doors were a generation ago.
Bold Headlines Versus The Murky Reality
The headlines give a distorted picture. A few notable victories do not mean all websites must be accessible.
The Domino’s Pizza case did not prove that all websites much comply with the ADA. The court ruled that if a place of public accommodation—like a store or a doctor’s office—is going to deliver a service through a website, then that website must be accessible. But, if a website is a stand-alone business—not connected to a store or other place of public accommodation—the Domino’s Pizza case did not require that website to be accessible.
Some prominent courts U.S. courts disagree with Domino’s Pizza. These other courts have found that stand-alone websites are, by themselves, a place of public accommodation and must be accessible to all those with disabilities.
In addition to this significant difference of opinion among prominent courts, there are no legally binding rules for making your website “accessible.”
The Official Un-Official Rules
Web accessibility suffers from a lack of instructions. For physical structures, like buildings and sidewalks, developers and architects can turn to exacting government regulations. No such official rules exist for website accessibility in the U.S.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international organization, has issued guidelines. Its Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide a bible for making websites accessible to people with disabilities. WCAG starts with the big picture first. It espouses the goals of enabling people to perceive, understand, navigate and interact with websites. Then, WCAG provides guidelines to the experts who build websites. There are instructions for creators of content, makers of web browsers and media players, designers of assistive technology like screen readers, alternative keyboards and scanning software, developers of software that creates websites and even developers of software that tests the other software.
But W3C’s guidance is voluntary here in the U.S. In fact, in a rare pronouncement on the subject, the U.S. Department of Justice said that, while the websites of public accommodations must comply with the ADA, there are no legally required guidelines for compliance.
Back-Benchers And The Accessibility-Industrial Complex
To add to the uncertainty, some criticize the entire accessibility push. When their icon was sued, Beyoncé’s fans stormed the media and hurled accusations about “predators” opportunistically pursuing accessibility lawsuits. Others complained of individual accessibility plaintiffs who each filed lawsuits against dozens of companies that the plaintiffs showed no intention of using.
Motives are hard to judge. One person’s abusive litigant is another’s persistent civic activist.
But the fact is, it’s starting to get hot and crowded in the courtrooms.
If you would rather spend your dollars on a better, accessible website—instead of the Lawyers’ Official Boca Raton Retirement Fund and Spa—get educated and then change your website or build a better one from scratch.
Start with a consultant. They’re not hard to find—just search for an article on the subject. They will guide you on many concepts and the mechanisms you need to build into your website, from translating language, to compatibility with screen readers and other devices used to access data, to the enhancement of accessibility by manipulating size, color, separation and accentuation of data.
Implementing an accessible website will be time-consuming and expensive, especially if you are retrofitting an existing website. But, a truly accessible website will expand your user base, enhance society and, possibly, take a lawsuit target off your back.
