Plaintiffs in recent years have sued internet-based companies under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with allegations that the websites are not accessible (mostly to the visually impaired). Whether Title III of the ADA applies to internet-based companies (as opposed to companies with physical storefronts) has been the subject of an ongoing debate, and inconsistent court rulings.
However, recently in Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., the Second Appellate District may have set the issue to rest as the Court declined to extend the meaning of “a place of public accommodation” under Title III to digital-only websites. Accordingly, an Unruh Act claim based on a violation of Title III cannot extend to purely digital websites and does not constitute a Title III violation. The Court established that those trying to recover against a digital-only website can only establish an Unruh Act claim under the theory of a “denial of access to a business establishment based on intentional discrimination.”
The Court of Appeal concluded what intentional discrimination requires is that “A claimant may not rely on the effects of a facially neutral policy on a particular group . . . to infer solely from such effects a discriminatory intent.” Rather, the claimant must allege facts that show willful, intentional conduct. Notice of the alleged problem was not sufficient, where a facially neutral website that did not contain explicit discriminatory statements or intent, but which allegedly failed to address known discriminatory effects, does not support an intentional discrimination claim. In addition, the Court of Appeal concluded that a website business is not a place requiring public accommodation.
As for the Unruh Act claims, the Second District observed that Federal courts offer conflicting opinions and California courts have “not reach[ed] the legal issue whether the ADA applies to websites without a nexus to a physical place.” The Appellate Court looked to the plain meaning of the word “place” and determined the term typically involves a physical location. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has recently declared that “place” refers to a physical space, under a New Jersey law prohibiting discrimination in
While the issue of websites as public accommodations may be clarified further, at least one California court now holds that website-only businesses are not covered under Title III of the ADA which therefore will not support a claim under the Unruh Act premised on a violation of Title III.
Website owners should discuss with their attorneys and web developers what practical steps can be implemented on their websites so that public access for persons with disabilities does not become an issue.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
