Good Afternoon, Madam Chief Justice

The coupons on Neptune.shop could be used at the Westridge store and at independent retailers that sell Neptune candy and accept those coupons.

Albert never called Neptune's customer service line.

The concurrence said that Neptune argued that courts should not apply Title III to websites absent DOJ regulations but rejected that argument.

The Thirteenth Circuit noted and rejected Neptune's argument that summary judgement was proper because Albert did not introduce evidence that any aspect of its website specifically linked to the Westridge store was inaccessible.

The Thirteenth Circuit discusses Neptune's customer service line but states that it is a way to treat individuals with disabilities differently from individuals without disabilities.

Albert was able to use her screen reader to access the address of the store, directions to the store, and the list of upcoming in-store events.

The Thirteenth Circuit says that Neptune moved for summary judgement after discovery.

The second question in the Order Granting Certiorari asks whether Title III of the ADA applies "to a website that has a nexus to a store that is a 'place of public accommodation.'"

The Products page on Neptune.shop does not identify the products that are currently in stock at the Westridge store.

Judge Harlan states that, "striving for accessibility without a clear standard is a losing battle."

Ms. Albert sought a permanent injunction requiring Neptune.shop to "comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0."

The Thirteenth Circuit says its standard of review was de novo in reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgement.

Approximately five percent of Neptune's annual revenue comes from the Westridge store.

Albert has visited the Westridge store "at least four times."

According to the district court, "the absence of clear standards, coupled with the fact that the ADA provides for payment of attorney's fees" has led to an increase in lawsuits "even among businesses who have made significant attempts at accessibility," in jurisdictions that have expanded the reach of Title III to allow suits due to inaccessible websites."

The concurrence gives these two reasons for criticizing the nexus approach the Thirteenth Circuit adopts: it has the perverse effect of leaving unregulated the websites where access is most critical, and it is in tension with the Supreme Court's Wayfair opinion.

Two block quotes appear in the Thirteenth Circuit's opinion: a block quote from the ADA on what constitutes discrimination and one from a law review article advocating for the nexus doctrine.