Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 620 posts

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#51

Post by jerf »

zaroth wrote: post #41
0xEFF wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law has covered websites for decades. It used to be not that much of a problem because screen readers worked well enough with plain html.

Pretty sure the law doesn't say anything in particular about websites. I don't usually find myself scratching my head at SCOTUS. Full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services is the pizza, not the website. The website is just one means of obtaining said pizza.

As I said in another comment about another case that didn't make it, the acceptance rate of the Supreme Court is single-digit percentages. Don't overinterpret them not accepting a case. They have to not accept a lot of cases. It may not be entirely meaningless, but it isn't very meaningful either. There will be another case about this in the future if they do choose to take it up. I'm sure this is a perennial topic.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#52

Post by Mathnerd314 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
tibbon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a myth that reasonable accommodations are too much of a burden for a small business to handle. Having a menu made into Braille for example isn’t going to cost a ton. On the upside, they would also now have business available that they didn’t have in the past.

I wonder why Domino's having a phone number to call in orders isn't enough of an accommodation in this case?

It probably is sufficient; the issue here was Domino's said the website wasn't covered by the ADA at all.

And there might be trouble with some of Domino's coupons being online-only.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#53

Post by rudolph9 »

I would consider this a good thing. It really doesn’t require very much effort to be compliant and it ultimately results in UI that are more easily accessible by not only bling people, among other disabilities but also encourages better extensibility for creative purposes https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#55

Post by kwoff »

Meekro wrote: post #14

If you're blind, can't you just call up a Dominos to order your pizza? "Talk to a human and order your pizza" sounds like a friendlier approach than the automated screen reader or whatever they'll come up with to resolve this litigation.

You're getting the "blind" part, but assuming someone can talk to a human? Not to mention "sounds like"...

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#56

Post by tomnipotent »

0xEFF wrote: post #15
nvahalik wrote: post #9

This seems like overreach. Clearly the law doesn’t cover websites. Why can’t congress just pass a law to make the ADA apply to websites? It’s not SCOTUS’s job to create law.

The law has covered websites for decades. It used to be not that much of a problem because screen readers worked well enough with plain html.

> The law has covered websites for decades.

Except it hasn't. The U.S. legal system is based on precedence (common law), and other than a scattering of local Title III judgements (Long v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC, Winn-Dixie, Blick Art) there is no concrete or shared understanding of how ADA applies to e-commerce.

I welcome all these lawsuits, for no other reason that we'll reach a consensus sooner-than-later on compliance.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#57

Post by adventured »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #19
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

Sounds like a great start-up opportunity. Turnkey and ongoing accessibility compliance.

I really hope not. I don’t think “X compliance” is a good idea for a startup, because of trust and liability. Whomever does the compliant would either need a ton of liability insurance, or would need contract language that actually gets them out of responsibility (similar to the language in many travel insurance and point-of-dale service plans). The former would be expensive, so you’d probably end up with the latter.…

What you're describing already exists for most businesses. Try opening a restaurant without hiring a specialist firm to do compliance reviews (rhetorical: is food safety more important than privacy protections?). Bricks & mortar businesses often have a parade of compliance and certification hoops to keep spinning that they live or die by.

The future of the Internet is the present of all other industry. Take all the regulations and government interference that already exists in old industries and apply it to every business online, every commercial website. Nothing can stop this process, it's well underway now and will get radically worse over the coming 10-15 years. The regulation monster has its claws out and is beginning to sink them in (half the room will cheer that today, then complain ten years from now at the burden; oh but they went too far, you see; human nature in action).

Whatever it is you want to build, do it now before the regulators and competition (through regulatory capture) conspire even further to make it far more expensive and burdensome. Hurry, the old days of a low regulation, free Internet are rapidly fading.

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#58

Post by ccleve »

On the surface, this sounds like a fine thing. Who doesn't want accessible websites?

But it really opens a can of worms. What's a place of public accommodation? With brick-and-mortar, it's easy; if you have a physical location open to the general public, it probably qualifies. But on the web? Does my personal website count? What if I sell t-shirts on it? What if I don't sell anything, but have forums where the public can discuss things? What about a site which is primarily about communications, i.e. speech? Does a requirement that you put ARIA labels on things amount to compelled speech?

What if accessibility standards change? Am I compelled to upgrade my site?

This issue is a lot hairier than the court imagines. Does the court really want to get into the issue of which websites need to comply and which don't?

Re: Supreme Court allows blind people to sue retailers if websites aren't accessible

#59

Post by Pinckney »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
tibbon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a myth that reasonable accommodations are too much of a burden for a small business to handle. Having a menu made into Braille for example isn’t going to cost a ton. On the upside, they would also now have business available that they didn’t have in the past.

I wonder why Domino's having a phone number to call in orders isn't enough of an accommodation in this case?

My understanding, from a quick 5 minute skim, is that it may be. It's being sent back to the district court for reconsideration.

Basically what seems to have happened is this:

1. Robles sued Dominoes alleging their website violated the ADA.

2. The district court dismissed the suit, saying the DOJ needs to provide guidance on the standards that websites must meet, if the court is to hold them to the ADA. They don't examine the question of the phone.

3. The appeals court steps in and says that no, the district court was wrong to dismiss it for that reasons, and sends it back to the district court.

4. Dominoes appeals to SCOTUS, saying "help, the appeals court got it wrong, please step in!" SCOTUS declines to get involved, so the case will go back to the district court, which may still find that the phone access provided is an adequate accommodation.

Post reply on HN