After an explosion of “website accessibility” cases in recent years where plaintiffs sue internet-based companies under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that the websites are not accessible (usually alleged by visually impaired individuals), there is a ray of sunshine for some companies. The question of whether Title III of the ADA even applies to internet-based companies (as opposed to companies with physical storefronts) has been the subject of an ongoing debate, and inconsistent rulings, in courts.   

In Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., the Second Appellate District declined to extend the meaning of “a place of public accommodation” under Title III to digital-only websites. Thus, an Unruh Act claim based on a violation of Title III cannot extend to purely digital websites and does not constitute a Title III violation. Based on this, those trying to recover against a digital-only website can only establish an Unruh Act claim under the theory of a “denial of access to a business establishment based on intentional discrimination.”

Background

Defendant Cot’n Wash, Inc. ("CW") is a public website that lists, advertises, and sells its own cleaning products. However, CW does not have a physical location or offer its products through any brick and mortar storefronts. The Plaintiff is blind, and alleged that he was unable to navigate Defendant’s website despite Plaintiff’s use of screen readers, which he generally used to access the internet and read content. In his initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the CW website was not set to the WCAG standards (a common protocol to render information more easily available for the blind) or anything like it, and as a result, he was unable to fully and freely use the website because CW had discriminated against him and other people with similar visual disabilities.

The trial court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the initial complaint without leave to amend, and dismissed the case, stating that plaintiff had not established a claim of a Title III violation nor intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act.

The primary issue on appeal was whether Plaintiff had alleged facts supporting liability under one of two possible theories under the Unruh Act: (1) intentional discrimination, or (2) whether Defendant’s website constituted “a place of public accommodation” with respect to Title III of the ADA. 

The Decision

The Court of Appeal concluded that international discrimination requires “A claimant may not rely on the effects of a facially neutral policy on a particular group . . . to infer solely from such effects a discriminatory intent.” Rather, the claimant must allege facts that show willful, intentional conduct. Notice of the alleged problem was not sufficient, where a facially neutral website that did not contain explicit discriminatory statements or intent, but which allegedly failed to address known discriminatory effects, does not support an intentional discrimination claim. In addition, the Court of Appeal concluded that a website business is not a place requiring public accommodation. 

Martinez’s second theory of liability under the Unruh Act also fails for a multitude of reasons. The Second District observed that Federal courts offer conflicting opinions and California courts have “not reach[ed] the legal issue whether the ADA applies to websites without a nexus to a physical place.” And, The Court looked to the plain meaning of the word “place” and overwhelming support that the term typically involves a physical location. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has recently declared that “place” refers to a physical space, under a New Jersey law prohibiting discrimination in “places of public accommodation.” Finally, the Court of Appeal analyzed federal regulations and concluded that the failure to clarify the application to websites under Title III supported the Court of Appeal’s decision.
 
Conclusion

The decision seemed concerned that the goals of Title III of the ADA would be served to interpret websites as being covered as “a place of public accommodations”, but it was not the Court’s duty to adopt a position that neither Congress nor the DOJ has officially endorsed. While there may be clarification in the future, at least one California court now holds that website-only businesses are not covered under Title III of the ADA which therefore will not support a claim under the Unruh Act premised on a violation of Title III.