One of the largest areas of current legal exposure for companies arises from their own websites. That's because over the past several years, plaintiffs have filed thousands of lawsuits alleging that company websites are inaccessible to consumers with visual or hearing impairments—in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws.
But plaintiffs pursuing these claims recently suffered a major setback in New York federal court. In September, Chief Judge Swain of the Southern District of New York dismissed an ADA website claim against an online coffee retailer—holding that "a stand-alone website is not a place of public accommodation" and thus not subject to Title III of the ADA" See Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., No. 1:22cv3667, 2024 WL 4350912 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024).
Title III of the ADA requires private sector businesses that serve as "places of accommodations" to remove "access barriers" that hinder a disabled person's access to their goods and services. In these ADA website cases, the plaintiffs' theory is that: (1) commercial websites qualify as places of public accommodation; and (2) websites with access barriers (e.g., those that are not compatible with screen-reading software that vocalize visual information on a computer screen) deny plaintiffs' right of equal access in violation of the ADA and corresponding state law.
Many companies have moved to dismiss these website accessibility claims—with varying degrees of success—on the grounds that standalone websites without a connection to "brick and mortar" locations are not "places of public accommodation" and need not comply with Title III of the ADA. Indeed, this is the law in the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit courts of appeals.
Because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet squarely addressed this question, the S.D.N.Y. has been a favored venue for serial plaintiffs bringing accessibility lawsuits. Judge Swain's decision in High Brew Coffee may begin to stem that tide in federal court—at least with respect to internet-only businesses. However, these serial plaintiffs may simply choose to file in state court instead (indeed, we are already seeing that trend). Additionally, businesses with brick and mortar store are largely unaffected by the High Brew decision. Thus, it remains very important for businesses to speak with experienced counsel regarding website accessibility requirements and compliance.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
