Seyfarth Synopsis: DOJ's response to members of Congress about the explosion in website accessibility lawsuits contains some helpful guidance for public accommodations fighting these claims.
As we reported in June, 103 members of the House of Representatives from both parties asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to "state publicly that private legal action under the ADA with respect to websites is unfair and violates basic due process principles in the absence of clear statutory authority and issuance by the department of a final rule establishing website accessibility standards." The letter urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "provide guidance and clarity with regard to website accessibility under the ... ADA."
DOJ's September 25 response did not do what the members asked, but it did provide some helpful guidance and invited Congress to take legislative action to address the exploding website accessibility litigation landscape. DOJ first said it was "evaluating whether promulgating specific web accessibility standards through regulations is necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with the ADA." (This is helpful – to at least know this issue has not fallen totally off DOJ's radar.) It continued:
The Department first articulated its interpretation that the ADA applies to public accommodations' websites over 20 years ago. This interpretation is consistent with the ADA's title III requirement that the goods, services, privileges, or activities provided by places of public accommodation be equally accessible to people with disabilities.
Additionally, the Department has consistently taken the position that the absence of a specific regulation does not serve as a basis for noncompliance with a statute's requirements.
These statements are not surprising, as DOJ (granted, under the previous Administration) has made them on other occasions. But here's the part of the letter that is helpful for businesses:
Absent the adoption of specific technical requirements for websites through rulemaking, public accommodations have flexibility in how to comply with the ADA's general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication. Accordingly, noncompliance with a voluntary technical standard for website accessibility does not necessarily indicate noncompliance with the ADA.
(emphasis added). The fact that public accommodations have "flexibility" in how to comply with the ADA's effective communication requirement has been lost in the past eight years, even though DOJ made this point in its 2010 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for websites. In that document, DOJ stated that a 24/7 staffed telephone line could provide a compliant alternative to an accessible website. The few courts to have considered this argument in the context of an early motion to dismiss have recognized its legitimacy, but have allowed cases to move forward into discovery on this and other issues. There have been no decisions on the merits addressing the viability of having a 24/7 telephone option in lieu of an accessible website.
The statement that "noncompliance with a voluntary technical standard for website accessibility does not necessarily indicate noncompliance with the ADA" is new and significant. It is a recognition that a website may be accessible and usable by the blind without being fully compliant with the privately developed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 or 2.1. The statement confirms what some courts have said so far: That the operative legal question in a website accessibility lawsuit is not whether the website conforms with WCAG, but whether persons with disabilities are able to access to a public accommodation's goods, services, and benefits through the website, or some alternative fashion.
In response to the members' concern about the proliferation of website litigation lawsuits, DOJ said: "Given Congress' ability to provide greater clarity through the legislative process, we look forward to working with you to continue these efforts." DOJ is essentially putting the ball back in the Congressional court, where little is likely to happen.
Edited by Kristina M. Launey.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.