Should The ADA Apply To E-Commerce And Mobile Sites As âPublic Accommodationsâ?
Last week, The National Retail Federation (NRF) revealed in a statement that it was âdisappointedâ that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that would have enabled it to establish a âreasonable, nationwide standard for evaluating web site accessibility claims filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).â
A central point of contention is whether a web site is a âpublic accommodationâ within the ADA in the same way that a physical store is. In a brief filed with the court in July, NRF and the Retail Litigation Center said an Appeals Court ruling had âstretched the definition too farâ by deciding that web sites and mobile applications must be judged as public accommodations, rather than just considered as one of many ways in which a consumer might access a retailerâs offerings.
The RTP editorial team discusses whether web sites and mobile have become so universal that they could be considered a public accommodation, and whether they should be regulated as such in terms of access.
Adam Blair, Editor:Â For those of us lucky enough to not have major disabilities, itâs important to note that not everyone has easy access to the screens that increasingly dominate our lives. For example, people with low (or no) vision canât read product descriptions or view videos, or perhaps even access something as basic as a store locator. Thatâs a problem because the laptop or mobile screen has become the starting point (and the site of multiple return visits) for the vast majority of shopper journeys. Retailers, reasonably enough, want some consistent rules about what they need to do in order to make their sites accessible â currently itâs a hodgepodge of court decisions and state laws. Iâm leaning toward the idea that a web site is essentially a public accommodation, meaning they should be mandated to be made as accessible as possible. Moving toward equal access for everybody is not just the right thing to do, itâs a smart business move â disabled peoplesâ dollars are the same color as everyone elseâs.
Glenn Taylor, Senior Editor: Unfortunately this is one of the scenarios that could never have been predicted in 1990 when the ADA officially kicked in. Itâs always difficult to set precedents for future matters, particularly involving technology that didnât even exist yet. With that said, it simply makes more sense for legislation to be interpreted for the era itâs in. In the case of Dominoâs, which inspired the current situation, it doesnât make sense for a Dominoâs consumer who has a tough time reading the mobile site or is sensitive to the lighting a computer emits to travel all the way to a Dominoâs restaurant to buy their food. At this point itâs common sense for retailers and quick service restaurants to make the proper decisions to ensure theyâre offering the best experiences possible, just like when they had to comply with initial regulations around access to their physical locations.
Bryan Wassel, Associate Editor: As my colleague Adam pointed out, accommodating for disabilities online is both the morally and, arguably, financially correct decision. I agree, but I also see it as a way of future-proofing. The Internet, and e-Commerce in particular, is only growing more important to day-to-day existence, and we will eventually hit a point where the government is pressured to mandate accessibility standards for retailers online rather than leave them voluntary. Laying the groundwork now, even if itâs just basic text-to-speech functionality, can leave retailers better-positioned for more radical changes in the future. Plus, when the time comes, earlier actions will become a sales driver that proves your company cared about accommodating everyone before it was necessary, while the competition only acted when their hands were forced.
