Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits private entities from discriminating against people with disabilities. Specifically, a “place of public accommodation” prohibits discrimination “on the basis of a disability” and businesses must make their facilities accessible for “full and equal enjoyment.”
Federal courts have long been divided on whether online-only businesses are “places of public accommodation” under the ADA. In the Ninth Circuit, online-only businesses are not liable for ADA violations because the Ninth Circuit does not consider an online-only forum to be a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the statute. To overcome bad precedent in the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs in California file thousands of lawsuits each year in state courts – such as California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) – alleging violations of state laws parallel to the ADA alone. Until recently, California appellate courts had not decided whether online-only businesses were “places of public accommodation” under the URUH Act. As a result, California state courts, not bound by the Ninth Circuit’s precedent, were free to decide for themselves whether Congress intended an online-only forum to be a “place of public accommodation” under the ADA. The inevitable result is confusing state-level inconsistencies — one Supreme Court judge was likely to dismiss a Uruh Act lawsuit against an online-only company, while another Supreme Court judge ruled that the ADA applied to the same company’s website.
That all changed last month when it went to the California Court of Appeals. Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc.It joined longstanding Ninth Circuit precedent in finding that online-only businesses are not “public accommodations” covered by Title III of the ADA. Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (2022).
So what does this mean?
For a California business that conducts only online business (ie, an online business not associated with an actual, physical building or facility), this decision must be limited by the number of ADA accessibility lawsuits in California under both the ADA and the URUH Act.
in MartinezThe plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated the URUH Act by intentionally maintaining a retail website that was inaccessible to the visually impaired. Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s website does not support Plaintiff’s screen reading software because Plaintiff is visually impaired and uses screen reader technology to access the Internet and read website content. Plaintiff stated to Defendant that the Website’s website was not fully accessible to the visually impaired, and Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, even when informed of the discriminatory practices causing these barriers, did not take adequate steps to correct these barriers.
In California, a plaintiff may recover under two theories of tort law. of Martinez The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim based on both theories. On the first theory, the court concluded that the language of Title III and the US Department of Justice’s 2022 directive (which is silent on regulations regarding website accessibility) and the phrase “place of public accommodation” could not be interpreted. Retail websites that have nothing to do with a physical location. On the second theory, the court held that a company’s failure to address the discriminatory effects of facial expressions on a neutral website is not sufficient by itself to establish intentional discrimination under the Uruh Act.
What happens next?
The plaintiff in Martinez, with the support of counsel and “trial” plaintiffs (who go from website to website just to file a lawsuit) may seek review with the California Supreme Court. Online-only businesses may see pressure from the plaintiffs’ bar to file more aggressive allegations of willful conduct to reach the now-declared threshold. Martinez Regarding intentional discrimination.
Meanwhile, the Martinez Decision should give California online-only businesses a break on website accessibility lawsuits. If the California Supreme Court rules, it will be a watershed moment for online-only companies operating in California.
