Understanding ADA Compliance Websites and Liability
In a recent ruling, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has determined that businesses operating exclusively online are not subject to lawsuits regarding website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark decision emerged from a case involving an ADA claim filed against an internet-based coffee retailer in Manhattan. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Title III mandates that “places of public accommodation” eliminate obstacles preventing disabled individuals’ access to eat or buy at these locations. In recent years, there has been an influx of lawsuits from blind plaintiffs asserting that commercial websites fall within this category, and those lacking accessibility features violate the ADA and related state laws, although some argue that websites are not public accommodations.
Chief Judge Swain’s ruling aligns with the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) Judges’ interpretation of public accommodations, affirming that the ADA applies to physical insurance offices. She stressed the requirement of a physical location for ADA coverage, grounding her decision in a literal reading of the ADA’s categories and Congressional intent spanning three decades. Swain dismissed arguments that including “travel service” and “other service establishment” in these categories extend ADA applicability to online-only retailers. Her decision strongly indicates that websites are not public accommodations under ADA.
Across various circuits, businesses have sought to dismiss such claims with mixed results, contending that e-commerce websites that also don’t have physical locations are not subject to ADA Title III. The absence of a definitive ruling from the Second Circuit has made SDNY a favored venue for these lawsuits. Confirming that websites are not public accommodations according to the recent ruling adds more ambiguity.
Notably, Chief Judge Swain assumed control of this case after the motion to dismiss was fully briefed. While the full impact of this reassignment remains to be seen, the ruling could lead to a decrease in website accessibility lawsuits in New York’s federal courts.
In 2023, New York accounted for 77% of the 2,794 federal website accessibility lawsuits filed. Chief Judge Swain’s determination that websites are not public accommodations may encourage more plaintiffs to pursue their claims in state courts, potentially accelerating the increased state court filings observed in New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Will Public Accommodation Test Be Upheld?
A possible appeal to the Second Circuit could provide much-needed clarity on this issue. The legal community will be monitoring closely for further developments in this dynamic area of law. As the Second Circuit has yet to provide a definitive ruling on this matter, the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has emerged as a preferred destination for frequent plaintiffs filing accessibility lawsuits. However, Judge Swain’s recent decision in High Brew Coffee could potentially slow this trend, particularly for cases involving online-only businesses. The clear statement that websites are not public accommodations could shape future legal interpretations.