Are Websites Covered By The ADA?

Case: National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation: Implications Beyond "Brick-and-Click" Retailers

Summary: Are websites required to be accessible to the blind? A case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California directly addresses that question, and thus far, the answer seems to be “yes” if you are a business that uses your website to offer goods and services that are available in your “brick-and-mortar” store. The answer may also be “yes” if you are an operator of a website that may be deemed a “business establishment” or a “public place” in California.


Full Posting:

While the concept of providing a website that is accessible to blind persons may sound like an anomaly to some, assistive technology makes it possible for blind and visually impaired persons to surf the Internet. For example, screen reader software can convert text into speech, so long as that the website is designed to allow the use of screen reader software.

In 2006, National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”) filed a lawsuit against Target Corporation (“Target”) (the “NFB v. Target litigation”), alleging that Target’s website, www.target.com, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and related California statutes, The Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and The California Disabled Persons Act (the “Disabled Persons Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 54.

From the outset, NFB’s ADA claim against Target was limited by the statutory language. Title III of the ADA provides:

"No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."

42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (emphasis added).

In an earlier lawsuit filed by Access Now, Inc., another nonprofit disabled advocacy group, against Southwest Airlines challenging the inaccessibility of the southwest.com website, the court dismissed Access Now’s ADA claim because the claim was premised on the theory that the inaccessibility of southwest.com prevented access to Southwest’s “virtual” ticket counters, which are not actual, physical places of public accommodation. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1319-21 (S.D. Fla. 2002).

THE REQUISITE NEXUS BETWEEN target.com AND TARGET STORES

Learning from the Access Now case, the plaintiffs in the Target litigation allege that as a result of Target’s refusal to remove barriers to target.com, blind individuals are being denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at Target’s brick-and-mortar stores. In other words, the theory of the case against Target is that the plaintiffs were denied access to the goods and services at Target stores as a result of their inability to access target.com. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

As set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, the features of target.com include:

• a store locator that allows shoppers to find the location and hours of a nearby Target store;


• an online pharmacy, through which customers can place prescription refills for pick-up at a Target store;


• an online photo shop, through which customers can order prints for pick-up at a Target store;


• coupons that may be redeemed at a Target store, and;


• online wedding and baby registries.

In support of their motion for class certification, the proposed plaintiffs’ class members submitted declarations alleging (1) that they were deterred from going to the Target stores because they were unable to find products or product descriptions on target.com, and (2) that their shopping trips to the Target stores took longer as a result of the inaccessibility of target.com, either because they were unable to “pre-shop” or because they had to resort to in-store help. See National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73547, *19-23 (N.D. Cal., October 2, 2007). For purposes of class certification, the court found these declarants to be sufficient, and certified a nationwide class consisting of:

"all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores."

Id., *66.

INTEGRATION BETWEEN target.com AND TARGET STORES

While limiting the ADA claim, for the time being, to those plaintiffs who were denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services in Target stores as a result of their attempt to access target.com, the court did leave open the door for expanding the scope of the claim if the evidence showed an “integrated merchandising” between target.com and the physical Target stores.

This aspect of the court’s ruling can be found in its original decision denying Target’s motion to dismiss, where the court observed in a footnote that there were questions as to whether “Target treats Target.com as an extension of its stores, as part of its overall integrated merchandising efforts.” 452 F. Supp. 2d at 956, fn. 4. “A broader application of the ADA to the website may be appropriate if upon further discovery it is disclosed that the store and website are part of an integrated effort. Parties may file briefing on this issue later if the court deems it appropriate.” Id.

REASONABLENESS OF ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED BY TARGET

In certifying the class and in denying Target’s earlier motion to dismiss, the court specifically reserved for another day the question of whether in-store assistance and 1-800 customer service numbers offered by Target may constitute sufficient “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA. Id., *24; see also 452 F. Supp. 2d at 956. In addressing whether Target’s accommodations are reasonable, the court will no doubt take into consideration the nature of burden or hardship – i.e., the relative cost – to be undertaken in making the target.com website more accessible to blind users.

NO NEXUS BETWEEN "BRICK-AND-CLICK" REQUIRED FOR STATE LAW CLAIMS

The potential reach of the NFB v. Target litigation, however, is greater under applicable California laws.

Under both the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act, a violation of the ADA is a per se violation of those acts. A “brick-and click” retailer like Target (i.e., a retailer with both a brick-and-mortar presence and an online presence) faces potential liability under the ADA and the two California statutes if it is found to be denying blind or visually impaired consumers equal access to the website, and thus to goods or services of a place of public accommodation.

The court in NFB v. Target, however, has ruled that neither the Unruh Act nor the Disabled Persons Act requires a nexus between the individual’s online experience and his or her experience at the physical stores. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *28. The logical extension of such a rule is that any business doing business in California with a website is potentially subject to liability under these laws for failing to make its website accessible to visually impaired persons.

The NFB v. Target court’s decision was based on its reading of the statutory language. The Unruh Act provides that all persons are “entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). The Disabled Persons Act guarantees that individuals with disabilities “shall be entitled to full and equal access” to medical facilities, common carriers, telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, places of public accommodation, and “other places to which the general public is invited.” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1). Based on its finding that the language of the two California statutes is broader than the ADA, the NFB v. Target court defined the California subclass to include “all legally blind individuals in California who have attempted to access Target.com,” regardless of whether those persons attempted to access the physical Target stores. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *28-35, *66.

If other courts agree with the NFB v. Target court regarding the breadth of the California laws, then any business that directs itself to California residents, regardless of whether it is a retailer or it has a physical presence in California, faces possible exposure in the event its website is found to be inaccessible.

CONCLUSION

The NFB v. Target litigation is far from over. As of this writing, Target had petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the district court’s class certification decision. Target is also challenging the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Other issues – such as whether Target has provided reasonable accommodation, and whether the application of the Unruh and Disabled Persons Acts to regulate websites like target.com violates the dormant commerce clause – will no doubt be subjects of heavily contested litigation and appeals.

Additional test cases will follow, as well as potential legislative intervention. Neither the ADA nor advances in assistive technology, however, will fade away. All businesses would be well advised to evaluate their websites in the context of evolving laws and technology to ensure that if it becomes a target of the next lawsuit, it can put its best foot forward to demonstrate the reasonableness of its conduct.

Click here to read more.

California Attorney General Sues 20 Retailers and Toy Makers Over Lead Levels in Toys

Case: People of the State of California v. Mattel, Inc., et al.

The One Sentence Summary: Citing recent federal recalls of toys and other consumer goods containing lead at toxic levels, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has filed suit (seeking civil monetary penalties and injunctive relief) against 20 companies, including retailers Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, and Sears, as well as toy makers Mattel, Fisher-Price, and Marvel Entertainment, alleging (1) violations of the state’s “Proposition 65” for exposing people to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and (2) violation of the state’s unfair business practices act.


Full Posting:

On November 19, 2007, California State Attorney General Jerry Brown, together with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, filed a civil lawsuit based on the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, otherwise known as Proposition 65, and the state’s unfair business practices act, alleging a claim under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code. The case was filed in Alameda Superior Court (Northern California) against 20 companies, including prominent national retailers and manufacturers. The lawsuit was preceded by 60-day notices alleging that the defendants, without giving warnings, were exposing people to listed toxic substances. Prop. 65, which permits private parties to enforce the law under certain circumstances, requires that notice be given to state and local prosecutors, as well as the businesses allegedly in violation of the law, for 60 days before suit can be filed. The notice period allows public prosecutors the opportunity to file suit themselves.

Upon filing suit, Brown’s office announced that “Companies must take every reasonable step to assure that the products they handle are safe for children and their families and fully comply with the law of California. Despite the lengthening global supply chain, every company that does business in this state must follow the law and protect consumers from lead and other toxic materials.”

The lawsuit has significance for retailers operating in California, and for manufacturers of toys or other consumer goods being sold in California. Previous lawsuits brought under Proposition 65 have frequently been settled through the adoption of detailed settlement agreements, which are entered as judgments. Such settlements can impact future testing of products to determine whether they contain threshold amounts of toxic substances. In one recent case, the terms of a 2006 judicially approved settlement involving lead in children’s jewelry became the basis for a new state law governing metallic content of jewelry for both children and others. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25214.1 et seq.

Named in the suit, People of the State of California v. Mattel, Inc., et al., are Mattel, Fisher-Price, Michaels Stores, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, KB Toys, Costco Wholesale, A&A Global Industries, RC2 Corporation, Eveready Battery Company, Kids II, Kmart, Marvel Entertainment, and Toy Investments.

Proposition 65 became state law through California’s initiative process when voters approved the measure in 1986. Although the law does not necessarily prohibit businesses from exposing consumers, employees, and members of the public to listed chemicals, provided appropriate warning are given, litigation has sometimes resulted in the reformulation of products to reduce or eliminate the target substances.

Click here to read more.

ADA Plaintiff May Challenge All Barriers at Place of Public Accommodation Affecting His or Her Disability

Case: Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 05-56439 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2007)

The One Sentence Summary: If an ADA plaintiff has encountered or has personal knowledge of at least one barrier affecting his or her disability and thereby has been deterred from attempting to gain access to a place of public accommodation, the plaintiff has standing to challenge all accessibility barriers in that public accommodation that are related to his or her disability.


What They Were Fighting About: Plaintiff Jerry Doran sued for ADA violations at a 7-Eleven store located in Anaheim, 550 miles from his home. Doran is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. His complaint identified nine alleged barriers at the 7-Eleven store including that the store aisles were too narrow and that disabled patrons were denied access to the employees-only restroom. During discovery, Doran's expert conducted a site visit and identified three additional barriers that would potentially impact mobility-impaired persons. The trial court granted summary judgment to 7-Eleven on all of Doran's ADA claims, holding that Doran did not have standing to challenge barriers first identified in the expert report because he did not personally encounter or have personal knowledge of those barriers. The trial court also found that Doran failed to provide any evidence that the nine barriers identified in the complaint had not been removed or violated the ADA. Doran appealed.

Court Holdings:

• The fact that Doran lived 550 miles away from the 7-Eleven store did not preclude him from establishing Article III standing. He personally visited the store on 10 to 20 prior occasions, is currently deterred from visiting the store due to its accessibility barriers, and planned to visit Anaheim at least once a year on annual trips to Disneyland.
• Trial court erred in precluding Doran from suing as to those accessibility barriers related to his disability as a wheelchair user that he did not personally encounter. If an ADA plaintiff knows about at least one violation that deters him or her from attempting to enter the public accommodation again and conduct further investigation of its accessibility, the plaintiff has Article III standing to sue. Discovery may then be conducted as to any other barriers related to his or her disability and those may be included in the claim.
• A rule limiting an ADA plaintiff to challenging only those violations affecting his or her disability that he or she personally encountered or knew about at the time of filing suit would burden businesses with more ADA litigation, encourage piecemeal compliance with the ADA, and interfere with the goal of eliminating disability discrimination in places of public accommodation.
• The dissenting judge expressed serious concern that the majority were improperly expanding Article III standing to plaintiffs who had not suffered an injury. The dissenting opinion presented a hypothetical of a mobility-impaired customer who sued after being unable to find a disabled parking space in a shopping center, and then sought discovery as to ADA violations by all the tenants of the center whose stores he or she never visited after being unable to find parking. The majority distinguished this scenario as involving establishments within the shopping center that were not responsible for the injury to the customer caused by the lack of disabled parking access.
• The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of alleged ADA violations that Doran failed to prove with any evidence. As to the allegedly narrow aisles in the 7-Eleven store, plaintiff did not present any measurements to show that the aisles did not comply with the 36-inch clearance required by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Regarding the lack of access to the employees-only restroom, that is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA because it is not open to the public. Therefore, no violation of the ADA occurred.

Click here to read more.

Protection of Consumer Payment Information Remains an Imperative for California Retailers

The One Sentence Summary:
While Governor Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a Bill that would have imposed greater obligations on retailers with respect to protection of consumer payment information, continued legislative efforts are likely and retailers remain subject to data security standards set by the Payment Card Industry.

Full Posting:
On October 17, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 779, which would have imposed greater responsibilities on retailers with respect to the storage of customer payment data, sending of customer payment data on public networks, and access to customer payment data. In addition, AB 779 would have imposed additional obligations on retailers with respect to notifying California residents whose personal information is acquired by an unauthorized person, and it would have imposed an obligation on retailers to reimburse data owners for costs incurred due to security breaches, including replacing cards and notifying customers.

AB 779 was passed by the Assembly by a vote of 68-0 and by the Senate by a vote of 30-6. In vetoing the Bill, the Governor cited ambiguities in the application of AB 779 and expressed concern that AB 779 could create a conflict with the responsibilities and liabilities already established by the Payment Card Industry (“PCI”), which is composed of the five major credit card brands.

The PCI security standards are minimum compliance and validation guidelines applicable to organizations that accept payment card transactions. They include guidelines for maintenance of a secure network; protection of cardholder data; maintenance of a vulnerability management program; implementation of access control measures; regular monitoring and testing of networks; and maintenance of an information security policy. The PCI standards are not enforced by PCI. Rather, individual payment card companies have the ability to enforce the standards, including by subjecting retailers to fines or revocation of card processing privileges for failure to comply. Additional information regarding PCI compliance can be found at http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/.

Despite the Governor’s veto of AB 779, he acknowledged the need to protect consumer financial information. The Governor also encouraged the Bill’s author and the credit card industry “to work together on a more balanced legislative approach.”

What does the veto of AB 779 mean for California retailers? First, irrespective of the Governor’s veto, retailers are required to become PCI compliant or they risk fines or suspension of credit card processing privileges. If a retailer is not PCI compliant, efforts to gain compliance should begin immediately. Second, retailers can expect a second attempt by the California Legislature in 2008 at imposing additional obligations on retailers with respect to maintaining and protecting customer payment information. Becoming PCI compliant is an initial step in preparing for potential legislative enactments.

Click here to read more.