United States Laws
The American with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Technical Accessibility Standard

The Department adopted the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.1 Level AA. While WCAG 2.2 was finalized when the ADA’s new Rule was published, it was not when the draft Rule was published in 2023. The Department justified not referring to WCAG 2.2 because WCAG 2.1 was a more mature standard at the time.

Exceptions

The Rule requires websites and mobile apps to conform to WCAG 2.1 AA with five exceptions:

• Archived web content, when the content is clearly archival and marked as such.
• Preexisting conventional electronic documents unless they are required to "apply for, gain access to, or participate in the public entity's services, programs, or activities"
• Content posted by a third party, unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity.
• Conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured, and
• Preexisting social media posts

Title II entities must still fulfill their existing obligations to provide effective communication. So, if someone wants to access inaccessible content that falls into the excepted categories, then entities must provide an alternative accessible version upon request.

Other Features

The rule clearly states that Title II entities must provide accessible technologies that an entity "provides or makes available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements." This means that third-party tools and platforms must also conform to the standards and scoping of the rule.

Broader concepts from the ADA are also present in Title II. For example, entities are not required to provide an accessible experience if doing so would create an undue financial or administrative burden, or a fundamental alteration to the program, service, or activity provided.

Entities also have some leeway when technology does not fully conform to the requirements under the rule. If the entity can show that the non-conforming technology has such a small impact on a user with a disability that it does not prevent them from being able to:

• Access the same information as individuals without disabilities;
• Engage in the same interactions as individuals without disabilities;
• Conduct the same transactions as individuals without disabilities; and
• Otherwise participate in or benefit from the same services, programs, and activities as individuals without disabilities.

In all of the above, entities must make sure that they protect users’ ability to access non-conforming technologies in a manner that provides substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence, and ease of use.

These principles have long been part of the language used by the Departments of Justice and Education to define accessibility in websites and mobile apps.

The Rule is significant because of the sheer number of public sector entities. State agencies, municipalities, public primary, secondary, and higher education all fall under Title II. After many years of relying on voluntary action by these entities, the Department of Justice acted to make action mandatory.

Application of ADA to the Internet: A US Department of Justice Ruling

In September 1996, a constituent of Senator Tom Harkin wrote to him questioning the application of the ADA to his web site. Sen. Harkin wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to have this question answered. The DOJ indicated their belief that the web is a covered entity under the ADA.

National Federation of the Blind vs. AOL

Another important application of the ADA to Web Accessibility came with the filing of a lawsuit by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) against AOL in 1999 based on the public accommodation requirements of Title III of the ADA. AOL settled the lawsuit in 2000 and agreed to make its content accessible.

Oversight Hearing on the Applicability of the ADA to Private Internet Sites

On February 9, 2000 an oversight hearing was held in Washington, D.C. titled: The Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Private Internet Sites. This hearing was meant to determine whether or not the Internet should be excluded from protection under the ADA.

Martin vs. MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority)

In this case, 6 plaintiffs filed suit in Federal Court arguing that MARTA failed to "make information available to people with disabilities through accessible formats and technology". The district court ruled in 2002 that MARTA had violated the ADA and granted the plaintiffs an injunction requiring MARTA to improve service to the disabled.

Spitzer Agreement

In an August 19, 2004 press release titled Spitzer Agreement to make web Sites Accessible to the Blind and Visually Impaired, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced settlements with two major travel web sites that will make the sites far more accessible to blind and visually disabled users. According to the press release, "Ramada.com and Priceline.com, have agreed to implement a variety of accessibility standards that will permit users of assistive technology, such as screen reader software, to more easily navigate these web sites."

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation

This case, filed in February 2006 and eventually settled in August 2008, signaled that Title III of the ADA would extend to websites, not merely physical locations. Though no official ruling on the issue was reached, Target's decision to accept a settlement which included a substantial commitment to improving the accessibility of their website – specifically with regards to blind users – began a shift by similar businesses towards accessible design in their websites.

Guillermo Robles vs. Domino's Pizza

In this case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Title III of the ADA extended to websites and mobile applications that are connected to a physical place of business. This decision set a legal precedent that requires physical businesses that make use of websites and apps to ensure that those websites and apps are accessible. The Ninth Circuit declined to rule on websites and mobile applications that are not connected to a physical place of business. Domino's Pizza attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court; however, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The Ninth Circuit's Opinion was filed on January 15, 2019.

Gil v. Winn-Dixie

A blind patron, Juan Carlos Gil, filed suit in 2017 against his grocery store claiming they discriminated against him because of his disability and had "not provided full and equal enjoyment of services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations provided by and through its website." Winn-Dixie argued that their website was not a place of public accommodation and therefore they did not need to provide an accommodation. In June of 2017 a District Court in Florida delivered a judgement for the plaintiff which would require Winn-Dixie to make their website conform to WCAG 2.0, establish a web accessibility policy, and provide training for its employees. Winn-Dixie appealed the verdict. On April 7, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Winn-Dixie grocery chain's inaccessible website did not, in fact, constitute a violation of Title III of the ADA. The ruling acknowledged the fact that the website was not accessible to the plaintiff, a screen reader user, but asserted that, as the website was only being used to schedule a pickup from the store's pharmacy, which would be paid for in person, rather than to actually purchase any products, that it did not present a barrier to accessing the store's services.

This ruling is in contrast to the "Nexus Doctrine" commonly upheld by other circuit courts and exemplified in the "Guillermo Robles vs. Domino's Pizza" case described earlier on this page. This doctrine takes the view that websites and mobile applications are connected to the physical location of the business and must be held to the same standards of accessibility. This ruling currently holds only in the states of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; the states served by the Eleventh Circuit. Therefore, its impact is limited, as there are very few organizations that wish to make a website only for those three states. If the doctrine embraced by this ruling becomes popular elsewhere, however, it would represent a significant reduction in the scope of the ADA, and a significant reduction in the legal standards for web accessibility.