Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Blind Man's Lawsuit Against Domino's Threatens Every Website

By Rich Duprey – Updated Oct 15, 2019 at 3:38PM

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

A business's online presence must be fully accessible by all disabled people.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by Domino's (DPZ) to hear a case about whether a blind man's failure to be able to order a pizza from its website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

While the decision means the case will now go to trial, it still has far-reaching implications for all businesses because it puts them on notice that not only must their physical locations be ADA compliant, but their websites and mobile apps must be accessible as well.

A gavel on a laptop keyboard

Image source: Getty Images.

Applying digital logic to analog law

The case was brought by Guillermo Robles, a blind man who said he couldn't order a customized pizza off Domino's website because its design lacked sufficient technology to allow his screen-reading software to work. He wanted Domino's to comply with Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, a set of standards for online and mobile content developed by technology and accessibility experts.

Before the case went to trial, Domino's sought to have the case thrown out, arguing the ADA did not apply to its website because it covered a "place of public accommodation." While most people understand that to mean a physical location, such as a restaurant, supermarket, or some other building, the courts have expanded on the concept.

In rejecting Domino's position, the court noted the ADA's language specified it applied to services offered of a public accommodation, not in a public accommodation, so its website and mobile app connected customers to the physical restaurants, meaning the ADA applied to them, too.

According to a 2006 case involving Target, the court held "To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute."

Yet that "plain language" was written in 1990, only a year after the World Wide Web was invented, meaning no one even contemplated allowing a blind person to order a pizza over the internet. The lawsuit against Domino's will now go back to the trial court.

An impossible hill to climb

Because there are no uniform regulations regarding what accommodations are compliant, lawsuits like this are becoming commonplace. According to UsableNet, nearly 2,300 lawsuits related to ADA applicability to website access were filed in 2018, nearly triple the number the year before.

Domino's has been a leader in technology. The pizza chain issued a statement saying, "We take great pride in having already developed an accessible website and app, as well as many additional ways for all customers to connect with our brand and menu," including 24-hour hotlines for those using screen readers, using voice-activated devices like Alexa and Google Home, as well as its own voice-ordering digital assistant, Dom, that's available on the website and in its mobile app.

But as Domino's has also argued, it's increasingly difficult for business to comply with the law because how content is presented online is constantly changing. "Each defendant must figure out how to make every image on its website or app sufficiently accessible to the blind, how to render every video or audio file sufficiently available to the deaf, or how to provide content to those who cannot operate a computer or mobile phone."

Unlimited liability

This ruling creates uncertainty for businesses, as they will have to wait for the courts to clarify what technology is necessary to meet ADA accessibility standards. As a result, it is possible that innovation could be stifled as businesses make efforts to avoid exposing themselves to liability.  

As the law continues to be clarified in this area, expect continued lawsuits from enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys and heightened legal risk for businesses developing online ordering technology. 

Rich Duprey has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Invest Smarter with The Motley Fool

Join Over 1 Million Premium Members Receiving…

  • New Stock Picks Each Month
  • Detailed Analysis of Companies
  • Model Portfolios
  • Live Streaming During Market Hours
  • And Much More
Get Started Now

Stocks Mentioned

Domino's Pizza, Inc. Stock Quote
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
DPZ
$316.44 (%)
Target Corporation Stock Quote
Target Corporation
TGT
$151.79 (2.29%) $3.40

*Average returns of all recommendations since inception. Cost basis and return based on previous market day close.

Related Articles

Motley Fool Returns

Motley Fool Stock Advisor

Market-beating stocks from our award-winning analyst team.

Stock Advisor Returns
326%
 
S&P 500 Returns
102%

Calculated by average return of all stock recommendations since inception of the Stock Advisor service in February of 2002. Returns as of 10/04/2022.

Discounted offers are only available to new members. Stock Advisor list price is $199 per year.

Premium Investing Services

Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.