|
Page 1 of 6
Isabel Arana DuPree
The question of whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does or should apply to websites has been an issue of public interest since the advent of the Internet. In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, the Ninth Circuit was the first to find that Title III did apply to a website. Although Target was based on a specific set of facts, the decision highlights the need for Congress to amend the Act to address websites. This Recent Development explains why it is appropriate for Congress to take action now and examines several possible approaches Congress could take in amending the Act to address its application to websites.
Cite as 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 273 (2007) |
Download PDF
I. Introduction
In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation,
Bruce Sexton,
a blind individual, filed suit against Target Corporation (“Target”) for discriminating against disabled persons.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that because Target's website, Target.com, was inaccessible to the blind, the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Target filed a motion to dismiss stating the plaintiffs' claim was not actionable because Target.com was not a “place of public accommodation” recognized by Title III of the ADA
(Title III).
Ultimately, the court found the plaintiffs' claim viable because Target.com had a nexus to Target stores, which are places of public accommodation.
Target highlights the need for Congress to reexamine whether websites are potential places of public accommodation,
and to amend the Act to address the websites to which Title III should apply. In Target,the Ninth Circuit became the first to allow an inaccessibility claim to proceed against a business website under Title III.
While the holding in Target was highly fact specific, the decision could have serious implications for websites or other remote access accommodations not explicitly addressed in the “public accommodation”
language of Title III. By amending Title III, Congress will proactively address which websites are subject to Title III. Thus, Congress should reexamine the definition of a public accommodation in the ADA and either include a clearly defined set of websites or explicitly exclude websites altogether.
This Recent Development examines the need for Congress to revisit Title III to add websites as public accommodations. Part II examines the background of the ADA, including a detailed view of the language of Title III. Part III provides a review of three recent opinions that were most influential on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Target, and how the court reconciled these opinions to reach the Target decision. Part IV addresses Target's implications and the questions raised by the lack of a clear rule following Target. Part V concludes with an examination of why Congress should amend the language of Title III to address websites, how Congress could proceed, and whether narrow or broad language addressing websites would better serve the purpose and administration of Title III.
|
