{"id":3129,"date":"2016-09-19T11:26:24","date_gmt":"2016-09-19T11:26:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=3129"},"modified":"2016-09-19T11:26:24","modified_gmt":"2016-09-19T11:26:24","slug":"ada-and-the-internet-what-non-internet-cases-can-tell-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/accessdefense.com\/?p=3129","title":{"rendered":"ADA and the Internet – what non-internet cases can tell us."},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Coca<\/a><\/div>\n

“In deciding that Coca\u2013Cola’s vending machines in the instant case are not places of public accommodation, we acknowledge the limits of our holding. As the district court recognized, those vending machines may very well be subject to various requirements under the ADA by virtue of their being located in a hospital or a bus station, both of which are indisputably places of public accommodation.\u00a0Here, however, Magee sued only Coca\u2013Cola, an entity that does not own, lease (or lease to), or operate a place of public accommodation.”<\/p>\n

Magee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc<\/em>.<\/span>, 2016 WL 4363306, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016).<\/p>\n

Last month the Fifth Circuit confirmed a lower court decision finding that vending machines were not public accommodations and that by themselves they are\u00a0not required to be accessible. The reasoning was very similar to that in the Netflix<\/em>\u00a0and Target\u00a0<\/em>cases from the Ninth Circuit. Like the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit found that a\u00a0“public accommodation” means\u00a0a physical store or similar facility\u00a0where one buys goods or services. A website (in\u00a0Netflix<\/em>) or a vending machine (in\u00a0Magee<\/em>) might be a service of a public accommodation, in which case the public accommodation may be required to make it accessible. By itself, however, a\u00a0website or vending machine\u00a0is not a public accommodation. Standing alone it is not required to be accessible because it is simply not covered by the ADA.<\/p>\n

The same kind of argument led to a similar result in\u00a0Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Harris,<\/em> 647 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2011). The issue in\u00a0Harris<\/em> was whether voting machines were required to be accessible. The Court found they were not because the machines themselves\u00a0were not public accommodations.<\/p>\n

A completely different view appears in cases like\u00a0Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc.<\/em>, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) that focus less on the definition of public accommodation and more on the notion that goods and services should be accessible. These courts tend to view a distinction based on how goods or services may be purchased as irrational. Buying on the web or by phone shouldn’t be any different than buying in a physical store, at least with respect to accessibility.\u00a0Carparts\u00a0<\/em>was a pre-internet case dealing with telephone transactions, but it resembles recent cases like\u00a0Scribd<\/em> that make the same argument.<\/p>\n

The position of the Department of Justice lines up with that of the First Circuit in\u00a0Carparts<\/em>, even though its regulatory definitions of words like “facility” would seem to support McGee.<\/em> At the end of the day though\u00a0the day the courts will decide just what the ADA covers.<\/p>\n

What we see in the contrast between\u00a0McGee\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Carparts<\/em> is competing views of the ADA, with\u00a0McGee\u00a0<\/em>representing courts who believe Congress applied the ADA only\u00a0to public accommodations because it is focused on physical accessibility,\u00a0\u00a0while\u00a0Carparts\u00a0<\/em>reflects the views of those courts and the Department of Justice who see the ADA as a broad mandate for accessibility regardless of its specific language. These views cannot be reconciled, and while the question of internet accessibility tends to dominate today’s discussion of the ADA, it is worthwhile to remember that cases about vending machines and telephone services will also help define the law in individual circuits – at least until the Supreme Court is finally given a chance to weigh in on the subject.<\/p>\n

NOTE: for earlier blogs on this subject, click on the ADA Web Access category to the left.<\/p>\n