Seyfarth Synopsis:  In what has been deemed the first of its kind, Netflix has entered into an agreement with the American Council of the Blind, the Massachusetts-based Bay State Council of the Blind, and a blind individual, to add “audio descriptions” to many of the programs offered on its video streaming and DVD rental service.

By Kristina Launey

disabled buttonLast week, a California State Court became the first in the nation to rule that a retailer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act due to a website that is not accessible to individuals with vision-related disabilities.  As we have previously reported, courts have ruled on whether the ADA applies to websites,

Website accessibility is an evolving and complicated topic, about which we’ve written many times.  Thanks to delayed regulations and the Department of Justice’s changing positions on the issue, businesses have been caught off guard and plaintiffs’ attorneys are capitalizing on the uncertainty.  We have seen a surge of demand letters and lawsuits against public

There is more bad news for businesses that thought that they could wait for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue specific regulations before making their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities.  Federal Magistrate Judge Robertson in the District of Massachusetts recently denied motions by Harvard and MIT to dismiss or stay website accessibility class

By: Minh Vu

iStock_000016636778MediumIn late December, nine Democratic senators (Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.)) sent a joint letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting

iStock_000018867002_LargeOh, the irony.  Our federal government is filing lawsuits against private businesses and universities for having allegedly inaccessible websites and mobile apps when its own agencies have inaccessible websites.  In April 2014, we reported that the American Council of the Blind (ACB) and three blind federal contractors sued the General Services Administration , alleging GSA’s

readingOur ADA Title III Team lawsuit data has been cited in another publication, Shopping Centers Today.  The article, published yesterday, “Landlords grapple with more ADA lawsuits“, also featured discussion by our ADA Title III Team leader, Minh Vu, of the possibility and need for legislative or regulatory reform to offer business relief from

(Photo) WebsiteBy Minh N. Vu

What a difference five years makes. In September 2010, the Justice Department (DOJ) announced in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that it would issue new regulations under Title III of the ADA to address the accessibility of public accommodations websites. At that time, it made a number of statements that reasonably led public accommodations to conclude that their websites did not necessarily have to be accessible as long as the public accommodation offered an equivalent alternative way to access the goods and services that were provided on the website. The DOJ’s statements also led public accommodations to believe that once DOJ issues a final regulation, they would have time to make their websites comply with the technical accessibility standard DOJ adopts in that regulation.

DOJ has now shifted positions, presenting its revised viewpoint in Statements of Interest it filed in two lawsuits originally brought by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) against two universities about the alleged inaccessibility of videos on their websites. See here and here.

What DOJ said in 2010.

In the 2010 ANPRM, DOJ stated that “covered entities with inaccessible websites may comply with the ADA’s requirement for access by providing an accessible alternative, such as a staffed telephone line, for individuals to access the information, goods, and services of their website. In order for an entity to meet its legal obligation under the ADA, an entity’s alternative must provide an equal degree of access in terms of hours of operations and range of information, options, and services available. For example, a department store that has an inaccessible website that allows customers to access their credit accounts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to review their statements and make payments would need to provide access to the same information and provide the same payment options in its accessible alternative.”

DOJ also asked the public to comment on the following questions: (1) “Are the proposed effective dates for the regulations reasonable or should the Department adopt shorter or longer periods for compliance?” (2) “Should the Department adopt a safe harbor for such [web] content so long as it is not updated or modified?” (3) “Should the Department´s regulation initially apply to entities of a certain size (e.g., entities with 15 or more employees or earning a certain amount of revenue) or certain categories of entities (e.g., retail websites)?” Particularly relevant to the NAD lawsuits, DOJ specifically asked the public to comment on whether requiring videos on websites to have captioning would reduce the number of videos that public accommodations would make available, to the detriment of the public. (“[W]ould the costs of a requirement to provide captioning to videos cause covered entities to provide fewer videos on their websites?”).

What the DOJ is saying now.
Continue Reading DOJ Shifts Position on Web Access: Stating In Court Filings That Public Accommodations Have a "Pre-Existing" Obligation to Make Websites Accessible

Domain names and internet conceptBy Minh N. Vu

For today’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day, we have yet another Department of Justice enforcement action to report relating to the allegedly inaccessible websites and other technologies.  This time, DOJ is trying to intervene in an existing lawsuit, Dudley v. Miami University, filed by a former Miami University student who is blind.  Although the lawsuit is brought under Title II of the ADA which applies to state and local government entities and not public accommodations, the obligations under the Title II and III are very similar. Thus, the DOJ’s position in this lawsuit provides useful insight into how it would treat private universities and other public accommodations covered by Title III of the ADA.

On May 12, 2015, the DOJ sought permission from the court to intervene in the lawsuit as an additional plaintiff.  If the request is granted, the lawsuit’s scope will widen.  As an individual plaintiff, Ms. Dudley can only seek injunctive relief that relates to her own disability (blindness) and attorneys’ fees.  The DOJ, on the other hand, can and is seeking injunctive relief that would benefit people with other types of disabilities such as those who are deaf or hard of hearing.  In addition, the DOJ can seek compensatory damages for past and present students who have been harmed, and a civil penalty of up to $75,000.

The DOJ’s action stems from the University’s obligation ensure that its communications with individuals with disabilities is effective.  One question we often get is whether a public accommodation is required to ensure that all of its communications with the public are effective, or just those that relate to the core goods and services that the public accommodation offers (e.g, communications by a university to students and prospective students about its courses and programs).  Some advocacy groups have taken the position that all material posted on any university website must be accessible for the benefit of the public at large, even if the material is not directly related to any coursework or other programs offered by the school.
Continue Reading Another DOJ Action over Allegedly Inaccessible Websites and Other Technologies