Cases
Background & Claims:
Guillermo Robles, a legally blind individual, sued Domino’s in 2016 after he could not place
an online order on its website or mobile app using screen-reader technology, alleging that
Dominos’ digital platforms violated Title III of the ADA by denying him “full and equal
enjoyment” of goods and services.
Court Proceedings:
The district court ruled in Robles’s favor, finding that Domino’s digital services must comply
with ADA accessibility obligations under the “auxiliary aids and services” provision (42
U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)). In 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that websites and
apps associated with physical restaurants are subject to ADA standards. Courts can require
compliance with guidelines like WCAG as a remedy.
Outcome & Impact:
Domino’s petitioned the Supreme Court, which declined to review the case in October
2019—leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling intact . The verdict cemented liability for
websites/apps of brick-and-mortar businesses under ADA.
Background & Claims:
In February 2006, the NFB sued Target, claiming its website was inaccessible to blind
users—violating ADA Title III and California civil rights laws.
Court Proceedings:
Judge Patel allowed the case to proceed, certifying a nationwide class of legally blind
individuals. Target’s motion to dismiss was denied, establishing that websites linked to
physical stores qualify as public accommodations under ADA.
Outcome & Impact:
In August 2008, Target settled for $6 million, plus attorney fees, and agreed to ongoing
accessibility fixes and monitoring, including certification by the NFB. This set a major
precedent for website accessibility enforcement and class-action litigation.
Background & Claims:
In 2010, the NAD sued Netflix under ADA, alleging that its “Watch Instantly” streaming
service lacked closed captions, discriminating against deaf and hard-of-hearing users.
Court Proceedings & Settlement:
Netflix reached a consent decree in October 2012, agreeing to provide closed captions on all
streaming content by 2014, with timely updates for new releases. The court rejected Netflix’s
argument that it wasn’t a public accommodation because it operates online without a physical
space.
Outcome & Impact:
With $755,000 in fees paid, Netflix set a model for ADA applicability to digital-only
services, reinforcing that “place of public accommodation” can include online platforms.
Background & Claims:
In February 2015, NAD filed class-action suits against Harvard and MIT for failing to
caption publicly available video and audio content, alleging ADA and Section 504 violations.
Court Proceedings:
Harvard and MIT initially sought dismissal. After DOJ backed NAD, courts declined
dismissal. Litigation and a year of settlement negotiations continued.
Outcome & Impact:
Harvard settled by February 2020, committing to full captioning and quality standards; MIT
reached similar compliance terms. These cases underscored ADA’s reach over online
educational content and set standards for video captioning and institutional practice.
Background & Claims:
In January 2019, Mary Conner—a legally blind plaintiff—sued Parkwood Entertainment,
Beyoncé’s management company, alleging that beyonce.com lacked alt-text, keyboard
accessibility, and screen-reader compatibility, violating ADA.
Court Proceedings:
Filed as a class action, Conner’s suit demanded an injunction to bring the site into ADA
compliance and possible damages for discrimination.
Outcome & Impact:
Though still pending or settled on undisclosed terms, this high-profile case highlights the
importance of digital accessibility for entertainment and celebrity web platforms,
emphasizing that ADA applies broadly.
Background & Claims:
Access Now sued Southwest Airlines in 2002, claiming its website was not accessible to
a legally blind plaintiff, arguing it qualified as a “public accommodation” under ADA.
Court Proceedings:
Judge Seitz ruled that the ADA’s Title III applies only to physical, tangible
accommodations—not “virtual ticket counters.” Southwest’s website was not a place of
public accommodation because it lacked a geographic nexus.
Outcome & Impact:
The court’s dismissal was affirmed, establishing a contrasting view to the Ninth Circuit.
This case is foundational in the ongoing circuit split over whether online platforms fall
under ADA coverage without a physical nexus.
Background & Claim: In early 2024, Discord was sued by visually impaired users over screenreader inaccessibility in both web and app interfaces.
Court Proceedings & Settlement: Discord responded by enhancing alt-text, UI labels, and
keyboard navigation, promising ongoing accessibility improvements.
Outcome & Impact: Demonstrates ADA’s relevance even in social and communications
platforms, not just retail or hospitality.
Background: In 2023, visually impaired users filed a lawsuit against Roblox, alleging that its
web and app interfaces were not compatible with screen readers or keyboard navigation,
resulting in exclusion from digital spaces and violating ADA Title III .
Outcome: Roblox agreed to enhance page labels, alt-text descriptions, keyboard navigation
flows, and overall screen-reader accessibility. The company committed to align future updates
with WCAG 2.1 AA standards .
Impact: This case extends ADA scrutiny to online gaming platforms, stressing that all
interactive digital services, not just retail, are required to be accessible.