January 18, 2019 Login
46 NEW ARTICLES
Ninth Circuit: Domino's Website Required to Comply With ADA
Brian D. Huben Michelle M. McGeogh Maraya N. Pratt
Ballard Spahr LLP
Like 0 Tweet
Friday, January 18, 2019
Litigation surrounding the accessibility of online services continues to evolve. On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the website and mobile app of Domino's Pizza must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to make these online services fully accessible to the visually impaired.
In Robles v. Domino's LLC, Guillermo Robles—who is visually impaired—brought suit in 2016 claiming the pizza chain's website not only precluded him from ordering a customized pizza, but also made online coupons inaccessible. Mr. Robles sought an order requiring compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0), an international voluntary standard for making online content accessible.
His case initially was dismissed in 2017 by a district court judge who held that while the ADA covered the company's website, imposing liability on Domino's would violate the company's 14th Amendment right to due process because the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not yet promulgated regulatory standards for online accessibility. In doing so, the court invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which allows courts to stay proceedings or dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.
The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel reversed, writing that Domino's had "been on notice that its online o erings must e ectively communicate with its disabled customers and facilitate 'full and equal enjoyment' of Domino's goods and services." The Court added that a lack of speci c regulations did not eliminate the company's clear statutory duty, and the Constitution does not require the DOJ to "spell out exactly how Domino’s should ful ll [its] obligation." The court also held that the district court had erred in invoking primary jurisdiction because the DOJ's withdrawal of its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking meant that undue delay in a resolution was inevitable, and such a delay was unnecessary because the application of the ADA was within the district court's competence.
The court additionally found that the ADA applied to Domino's website and mobile app because their inaccessibility "impedes By using the website, you agree to our use of cookies to analyze access to goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation." ThXe court added website tra c and improve your experience on our website. that the statute applies to services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. As a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine, after discovery, if the "Domino's website and app provide the blind with e ective communication and full and equal enjoyment of its products and services as the ADA mandates."
While the Ninth Circuit has indicated its position, the legal landscape regarding online accessibility remains uncertain. The 11th Circuit heard oral arguments in the noteworthy Winn-Dixie case on October 4, 2018, but has yet to issue a ruling. In that case, a plainti similarly claims that a grocery store's website is inaccessible to blind individuals.
As some courts have required companies' websites to be ADA compliant—and in light of DOJ's inde nite inaction—businesses are encouraged to review their policies to ensure online accessibility is being addressed.
Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLP
PRINTER-FRIENDLY EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
DOWNLOAD PDF REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
RELATED ARTICLES
Ninth Circuit Rejects Due Process and Primary Jurisdiction Arguments in ADA Website Accessibility Case
TCPA Case Law Review (Vol. 7)
Standard CGL Aircraft Exclusion Barred Liability Coverage
TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Effects Of The SEC Shutdown On The Capital Markets By Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Opportunity Zones Create Funding Alternative for Social Infrastructure Projects By Bilzin Sumberg
China Publishes Chemical Environmental Risk Assessment and Control Regulation to Update MEP Order No. 7 for Public Comment By Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
Michigan Governor Furthers LGBT Protections in State Contracts and Bans State Agencies From Asking For Salary History By Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
By using the website, you agree to our use of cookies to analyze X website tra c and improve your experience on our website. ANTITRUST LAW HEALTH CARE LAW BANKRUPTCY & RESTRUCTURING IMMIGRATION BIOTECH, FOOD, & DRUG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW BUSINESS OF LAW INSURANCE ELECTION & LEGISLATIVE LABOR & EMPLOYMENT CONSTRUCTION & REAL ESTATE LITIGATION ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY CYBERSECURITY MEDIA & FCC FAMILY, ESTATES & TRUSTS PUBLIC SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL, SECURITIES & BANKING TAX GLOBAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME & CONSUMER RIGHTS
LAW STUDENT WRITING COMPETITION SIGN UP FOR NLR BULLETINS TERMS OF USE PRIVACY POLICY FAQS
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or con dential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law rms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law rm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certi ed by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC
By using the website, you agree to our use of cookies to analyze X website tra c and improve your experience on our website.