DOJ’s September 25 response did not do what the members asked, but it did provide some helpful guidance and invited Congress to take legislative action to address the exploding website accessibility litigation landscape. DOJ first said it was “evaluating whether promulgating specific web accessibility standards through regulations is necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with the ADA.” (This is helpful – to at least know this issue has not fallen totally off DOJ’s radar.) It continued:
Seyfarth’s ADA Title III team consists of attorneys with extensive experience in ADA Title III litigation located in many offices across the United States, including California where plaintiffs are most active. With additional litigators admitted to practice in virtually every jurisdiction in the country, we have the resources to defend our clients against lawsuits and investigations on a nationwide basis and provide consistent and efficient service in national engagements. We have successfully defended against or resolved hundreds of lawsuits brought under Title III of the ADA and applicable state laws.
Adobe Acrobat DC (Document Cloud) 2019, an accessibility checking tool designed to help you better manage all of your critical documents, is now available for shipping. This version is completely redesigned compared to the initial version released several years ago. The guidelines covered in this new release include WCAG 2.1, PDF/UA, and Section 508 compliance.
This program is offered through UserLight Ltd, which verifies web accessibility on mobile sites on an iOS device, such as iPhone or iPad. Once verified, the evaluation findings can be exported via Google Spreadsheets or CSV. The program generates reports of the evaluation results but also provides step-by-step evaluation guidance. Mobile Web Accessibility Checker checks single web pages, groups of web pages or sites, as well as password protected or restricted pages.
The program generates reports of web accessibility evaluation results and automatically checks single web pages, groups of web pages or web sites and restricted or password protected sites. Supported formats include CSS, HTML, and XHTML. It’s an online service, both hosted service and server installation, and licenses are commercial and enterprise.
Without a definitive ruling, there is room for a difference of opinion. That’s exactly what happened in 2015 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Netflix is not subject to Title III of the ADA because it has no physical place of business. This opinion was unpublished, meaning it is not intended to be considered legal precedent, but it certainly makes it confusing for businesses that are not sure where they stand under the ADA.
Distinguishable: To assist color-blind users and those with other visual impairments, color is never used as the sole means of conveying information or prompting the user. Audio lasting more than 3 seconds can be paused, or the volume can be controlled independently of the system volume. Regular text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, and large text has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1. In addition, text can be resized up to 200 percent without causing issues with the website.
eSSENTIAL Accessibility has developed a comprehensive accessibility solution to help organizations follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and achieve and maintain compliance with ADA standards and ADA regulations. This includes integrating web compliance evaluation services with assistive technology to deliver a transformative experience for people with disabilities.
Thanks for writing. While I’m not a lawyer I believe if your physical practice is ADA exempt your web presence, as an extension of that physical business would maintain the same exemption status. If you’d like to be absolutely certain I’d confer with an ADA lawyer (email us, questions at yokoco dot com if you need a referral) but I don’t believe you have reason to worry.
Case law has been the most helpful in illuminating the implications of the ADA for websites.There have been lawsuits involving companies like Expedia, Hotels.com, Southwest Airlines, and Target as defendants and primarily featuring accessibility organizations as plaintiffs. These cases had mixed results, but each helped clarify the ADA's jurisdiction on the web.