In a careful, reasoned decision that deeply explored the meaning of “public accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc. that websites and virtual-only businesses are not subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA.
By engaging in this deeper inquiry, the decision seems designed to send a message to the other judges in the district that they, too, should reverse a long-standing trend in the district of permitting claims against web-only businesses.
Quick Hits
- Web-only businesses and Title III of the ADA: The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that websites and virtual-only businesses are not subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA, marking a significant shift in the district’s approach to such cases.
- Impact on future claims: This decision provides a basis for other judges in the Southern District of New York to reconsider and potentially reverse the trend of permitting ADA claims against web-only businesses.
- State law considerations: While the ADA claim was dismissed, the court did not rule on the applicability of New York State and New York City laws, leaving open the possibility that web-only businesses might still face accessibility claims under these local laws.
Like so many website accessibility cases filed every year, the claims here arose when the blind plaintiff claimed he was unable to use his screen-reading software to access and use the defendant’s website, which sold coffee products directly to consumers. The key fact, which ultimately spared the business from coverage under Title III of the ADA, is that the defendant operated a purely virtual business with no physical place of business open to the public. The business moved to dismiss the ADA claim, arguing that its virtual-only business was not covered by Title III.
Acknowledging that many courts within the district had already held that web-only businesses could be covered under the ADA, the court undertook a full exploration and analysis of the case that formed the basis for these decisions—Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that insurance services offered at an insurance office are also subject to the reach of Title III of the ADA)—as well as an analysis of the statutory definition of “public accommodation.” The court also cited the majority rule in the U.S. courts of appeals—requiring a connection or “nexus” to a physical place of public accommodation—countered only by the First and Seventh Circuits. By reanalyzing the decision in Pallozzi, the court was clearly attempting to move the Southern District of New York in the direction of the majority rule.
The court dismissed the ADA claim, and it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claims brought under the laws of New York State and New York City. Those claims can be refiled in state court in New York. It remains unclear whether those laws likewise require a physical place of business open to the public.
Key Takeaways
Web-only companies may want to consider the following in light of the court’s decision:
- Those that are sued for website accessibility in the Southern District of New York, or any court in the Second Circuit, may want to consider the possibility of challenging the claim with a motion to dismiss.
- They may be subject to various state laws that require their websites to be accessible under those states’ laws.
- Those that are sued for website accessibility in the First and Seventh Circuits, where the law is less favorable, could consider mounting a challenge to those circuits’ precedents based on decisions like this one.
