In 2019, 2,256 website-accessibility lawsuits were filed in the federal courts of the United States. All of these lawsuits were based on violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Between 2016 and 2020, web-based lawsuits against business entities increased by 200%, including large players as well as small businesses.
The ADA is a civil rights law that was passed in 1990 and prevents discrimination against people living with disabilities. This act aims to ensure that those with disabilities have the same opportunities and rights as people without disabilities.
Title III of the ADA encompasses all sectors, including jobs, transportation, schools, and private/public spaces that are open to the public. It requires accessibility requirements on business entities that operate in places of public accommodation, such as stores, shops, bars, restaurants, theaters, hotels, private museums, schools, and recreation facilities.
How Does this Translate to Website Accessibility?
Websites were initially not included in the scope of ‘public accommodation.’ As the percentage of people using the Internet and mobile phones increased over the years, a growing movement demanded accessibility in these spaces for people with disabilities.
Finally, in 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice mandated that websites be included in public accommodation. This was a landmark move that made businesses more conscious of the need for website accessibility, which now officially extends to the digital realm.
What is ADA Compliance?
While the ADA does not specify a clear set of guidelines for website accessibility, an ideal measure would be to use the WCAG 2.0 Level AA guidelines as a reference, which have been followed by several countries since 1999. They form the core of website accessibility laws globally and provide guidelines that can be used by any organization aiming to make their websites more inclusive.
The Basic Principles of WCAG 2.0
Developed in collaboration with organizations and individuals across the world, WCAG 2.0 consists of guidelines that are based on the four essential principles that websites must be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust:
Perceivable
The information on a web page and its user interface components must be presented to users in a way that they can perceive through their senses of sight, sound, and touch.
Operable
The ‘operable’ principle of WCAG 2.0 specifies that users must be able to interact easily with the user interface components.
Understandable
Website content must be easy for everyone to understand, irrespective of their disabilities.
Robust
When people with disabilities use assistive technologies, they often encounter blocks that prevent them from comfortably engaging with the site’s content. The ‘robust’ WCAG 2.0 principle specifies that the website content must be robust, thereby making it easy to interpret by a wide range of assistive technologies.
Success Criteria
Each of the guidelines listed in WCAG 2.0 has a specific set of success criteria. These criteria help website developers and accessibility experts determine whether a website and its pages adhere to the guidelines specified in WCAG 2.0.
Lawsuits Filed Based on the ADA
Several lawsuits have been filed in the United States over non-compliance with the ADA across industries. While retail is the most targeted space, several cases have also been filed in the food service, entertainment, and travel/hospitality industries.
The lawsuit against Domino’s is one of the most recent examples. In 2016, Guillermo Robles, a legally blind man, filed a lawsuit after several unsuccessful attempts to order pizza online. He found completing his order through the mobile app or desktop site impossible. His attorneys argued that the online space of Domino’s must be as accessible as their physical spaces. In 2019, the Supreme Court denied a petition from Domino’s, leaving in place a lower court decision in favor of Robles.
In 2019, Mary Conner, a blind woman, sued Beyonce’s company, Parkwood Entertainment, for non-compliance with the ADA. She had earlier tried using the company’s website to buy tickets for a concert but failed to do so because of the website’s accessibility level. Her attorneys specified that the company’s site did not use alternate text for images, which resulted in visually impaired users like Conner being unable to engage with the site.
In 2006, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Target Corporation. A blind student at UC Berkeley, in collaboration with the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), claimed that Target’s website was inaccessible for people who used assistive technologies, such as screen readers. Through a settlement in 2008, Target had to pay over $3 m.
