Pub. 1 Issue 4

VIRGINIA AUTO DEALER www.vada.com 22 Dealer Website ADA Compliance Issues By Julie A. Cardosi, Law Office of Julie A. Cardosi, P.C. T he Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) has gen- erated litigation claims since it was enacted into law several years ago. In recent years, however, there has been a plethora of litigation claiming that company websites violate Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrim- ination on the basis of disability in “places of public accom- modation” because the websites are not accessible to persons with disabilities. Traditionally, ADA claims were directed at brick-and-mortar, physical access barriers to dealership businesses. The more re- cent claims, however, assert that private company websites qual- ify as places of public accommodation, and websites with access barriers (such as compatible screen-reading software, for example) deny persons with disabilities the right of equal access. Litigation has also challenged accessibility of mobile applications. A number of plaintiffs’ firms typically file numerous suits against different companies alleging violations of Title III and seeking injunctive relief against the companies (that is, to make their websites ADA accessible), along with payment of attorneys’ fees under the statute. Such claims have been pursued against businesses all around the country in varied industries, includ- ing car dealerships, retail stores, restaurants, and the like. The abundance of claims alleging ADA website compliance viola- tions continues to clog judicial dockets and confound businesses that would be better served by more focused clarification from either Congress or the Department of Justice (which enforces the ADA) relative to website accessibility compliance for private companies. Title III of the ADA provides standards required for the physical location of a business to lawfully accommodate persons with disabilities, but it does not provide guidance for internet web-based or mobile applications. And while there are neither statutes nor regulations that specify how businesses must comply, DOJ has consistently asserted that websites must be ac- cessible to persons with disabilities, and businesses have flexibil- ity in deciding how to ensure their accessibility compliance. DOJ has also stated that the absence of a specific regulation does not serve as a basis for noncompliance with statutory requirements. Different conclusions on these issues reached by federal and state courts throughout the nation have also contributed to the challenges that businesses face in complying with the Title III re- quirements. For example, judicial decisions are split on questions regarding whether coverage under Title III is limited to physical spaces or whether a company’s website requires a nexus to a phys- ical location to fall within the scope of Title III protections. Dealership businesses may consider certain actions to make their websites more accessible. Courts and regulators gener- ally have required businesses to improve accessibility of their websites to be consistent with the Web Content Accessibility