Thanks, but I believe that information is out of date. ADA compliance lawsuits against websites continue to increase and are filed against growing numbers and categories of businesses, including small businesses. From what I've searched online, lawsuits have been filed against small mom & pop type shops, bloggers and forum owners. These lawsuits can happen without warning, because plaintiffs can initiate a lawsuit without notifying website owners of a problem or even trying to work with them for accommodation. From what I've gathered, even "good faith" efforts are not sufficient either.
Title III does not have the 15 or more employees requirement, so it is applicable to any size organization, including individual entrepreneurs, that is a place of public accommodation. Websites have been ruled as places of public accommodation.RMcGirr83 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:29 pm First, the ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. The ADA's nondiscrimination standards also apply to federal sector employees under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, and its implementing rules.
I know and I agree, but courts have ruled that meeting WCAG 2.0 (and more recently WCAG 2.1) AA guidelines constitutes being accessible. The Winn Dixie and other cases have shown that courts view WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines as the measure by which to determine accessibility.RMcGirr83 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:29 pm Second, there are no clear ADA regulations that spell out exactly what compliant web content is, but businesses that fall under ADA Title I or ADA Title III are required to develop a website that offers "reasonable accessibility" to people with disabilities.
Obviously "reasonable accessibility" is very much open to interpretation.
As far as WCAG goes for federal agencies and their contractors, yes, they are required to conform with WCAG 2.0. ... For private businesses, the answer is more complicated: they're not required by law to comply with any specific standard like WCAG, but their websites do have to be accessible.
Source pleaseWebsites have been ruled as places of public accommodation.
Here are a few:RMcGirr83 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:07 pm Title III specifically relates to physical buildings and structures.
https://www.ada.gov/ada_title_III.htm
Source pleaseWebsites have been ruled as places of public accommodation.
Source: https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/n ... ation-ada/• The Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the ADA’s mandate applies to digital services that have a “nexus” to a physical place of public accommodation.
• Courts within the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits have held that a website can be a place of public accommodation without any connection to a physical location.
Source: https://www.adatitleiii.com/2020/08/a-s ... usinesses/Last week, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Kiosan decided that Title III of the ADA does cover online-only businesses and refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed against an online-only video game retailer.
Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/liti ... t-the-ada/Websites May Be Places of Public Accommodation Subject to the ADA
Source: https://www.sgrlaw.com/is-your-website- ... ities-act/On the other hand, several federal courts – including the Blick Art Materials and Five Guys courts in New York – have concluded that under the ADA “places of public accommodation” are not required to be physical structures. According to this view, websites of a company without any physical locations are required to comply with the ADA.
Source: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2018/ ... for-places11th Circuit Determines Informational Websites for Places of Public Accommodation Are Subject to ADA
Source: https://modernrestaurantmanagement.com/ ... -and-apps/Recently, federal courts within the First, Second and Seventh Circuits have held that websites are "places" under ADA Title III and therefore should be accessible to disabled patrons. Therefore, websites within those jurisdictions must be ADA compliant even without a traditional brick and mortar establishment.
Source: https://cielo24.com/2019/11/title-iii-o ... odation-2/While Title III of the ADA is not explicit regarding the inclusion of online-only businesses, the Department of Justice is — and they assert that online-only businesses are subject to the ADA. This is important to know, as the DOJ is the entity that is ultimately in charge of legislation, regulations, and the enforcement of the ADA. So, it is best to start now and phase in access even if you have a virtual presence only.
Source: https://medium.com/@krisrivenburgh/does ... 4f176cf1e9You must make your website accessible because the law is being made up as we go.
Maybe, technically, your website isn’t a “place of public accommodation” (the ADA requires accessibility from places of public accommodation) but it’s a moot point because plaintiffs’ lawyers don’t mind sending you a demand letter to test the waters.
Once you receive that demand letter, it’s going to be more efficient for you to settle with them for several thousand less than it would cost you to have a defense attorney (very possibly an out of state attorney if you’re not in New York, California, or Florida) litigate the case.
By that time, it doesn’t matter whether you can reference a technically sound legal defense blog post online — you’ve lost.
Source: https://www.levelaccess.com/doj-reaffir ... -websites/• The DOJ still believes the ADA applies to websites, even if it is not acting to issue regulations
• The lack of regulations doesn’t release anyone from the need to make their websites accessible
• Organizations have a little flexibility in deciding how to make their websites accessible, but in most cases working to meet WCAG 2.0/2.1 AA success criteria will be the best strategy.
• Litigation will likely continue to increase.
Source: https://www.essentialaccessibility.com/ ... guidelinesOf course, as the legal landscape currently stands, places of public accommodation are being interpreted to include websites, apps, and documents, as well as other digital offerings including kiosks, software, and other electronic technology.
Source: https://siteimprove.com/en-us/accessibi ... e-website/Various courts around America have ruled that commercial websites are places of public accommodation and thus subject to ADA rules.
Source: https://www.morganlewis.com/~/media/fil ... ashx?la=enNotwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in eBay, the issue remains uncertain in other jurisdictions,
where district courts have decided the question differently. A court in the District of Vermont, for example, recently held that Scribd Inc. — a web-only business that hosts a digital library subscription service — can be sued under Title III for its allegedly inaccessible website. Unlike the Ninth Circuit, the District of Vermont reasoned that Title III’s reference to a “place of public accommodation” is ambiguous and that, as “a remedial statute,” the ADA ought to reviewed liberally in the plaintiff’s favor.
Source: https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/supr ... _1019.htmlThe Supreme Court’s order means a Ninth Circuit decision applying Title III to websites and mobile apps will stand, even in the absence of Department of Justice-promulgated regulations outlining applicable compliance standards.