WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."

for

From: John E Brandt
Date: Jun 27, 2012 3:06PM

This is interesting...I just finished reading the original blog entry on
attorney Goldman's personal blog and then read the Arstechnica version. I
noticed that the Arstechnica version, not the original, appears to have been
amended with the following:

"Update: Although I believe the statute and case law make it clear that ADA
does not apply to websites, I also believe that responsible websites should
voluntarily undertake extra efforts to accommodate users with disabilities.
In many cases, doing so will actually increase profits by expanding the
userbase; and even where it isn't, it's a good business decision both as a
matter of corporate ethics and for providing extra utility to all users."

Not exactly sure what that means...

The author Goldman also states (in both versions):
"Finally, Netflix argued that the Twenty-First Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010 ("CVAA") and associated FCC regulations
preempted the ADA's application to Netflix's service. I don't know anything
about the CVAA, but it's clearly topical to the issue of close-captioning
(sic) online video. The court says that Netflix (and presumably other sites
covered by the CVAA) gets the pleasure of complying with both the ADA and
the CVAA. Yay for duplicative and overlapping regulations!"

As someone claiming he "teaches and researches in the areas of Internet Law,
Intellectual Property and Advertising & Marketing Law," perhaps he needs to
do his homework with regard to CVAA (see
http://www.ericgoldman.org/biography.html ) .

~j

John E. Brandt
www.jebswebs.com
<EMAIL REMOVED>
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA