Landmark website accessibility cases, and what they teach

These cases are drawn from public court records and DOJ announcements. Each one began the same way: a person with a disability tried to do something ordinary online — shop, order dinner, watch a film, take a class — and couldn’t.

Target: the case that started it all

Bruce Sexton, a blind college student, tried to buy products on Target.com using a screen reader. Images had no alt text, the site required a mouse to complete purchases, and image maps made navigation impossible. With the National Federation of the Blind, he sued.

Target argued the ADA covered only physical stores. In 2006 the court disagreed in part: because Target.com was connected to Target’s stores — customers used it to find stores, refill prescriptions and print coupons — barriers on the website could violate the ADA. The court certified a nationwide class.

In 2008 Target settled: a $6 million damages fund for blind Californians, a commitment to make its website accessible with NFB certification, and staff training. The court later awarded plaintiffs’ counsel roughly $3.7 million in fees.

The lesson: a website that connects customers to physical locations is covered, and class actions can multiply the cost.

Domino’s: all the way to the Supreme Court

Guillermo Robles, who is blind, tried twice to order a customized pizza on Domino’s website and app with the JAWS screen reader. Unlabeled buttons and images made it impossible. He sued.

Domino’s argued that applying the ADA to its website without a DOJ regulation violated due process. In January 2019 the Ninth Circuit rejected that: the ADA applied because the website and app connected customers to Domino’s restaurants, and the lack of specific regulations didn’t excuse compliance. Domino’s — backed by business groups — asked the Supreme Court to step in. On October 7, 2019, the Court declined.

The case returned to the trial court, which ruled for Robles in 2021. It settled in 2022. Domino’s spent years and significant legal fees fighting over barriers that a remediation project could have fixed far more cheaply.

The lesson: “there’s no regulation” is not a defense. Courts use WCAG to decide what accessible means.

Winn-Dixie: the first trial, and a reversal

Juan Carlos Gil, who is legally blind, couldn’t use Winn-Dixie’s website to refill prescriptions or download coupons with his screen reader. In June 2017 his case became the first ADA website case decided after a full trial. The judge ordered Winn-Dixie to make its site conform to WCAG 2.0 and pay Gil’s attorneys’ fees.

In April 2021 an Eleventh Circuit panel reversed, holding that websites are not places of public accommodation and that Gil wasn’t denied access to the physical stores. But the opinion was vacated later that year after the injunction expired, so it has no precedential force.

The lesson: even when a defendant wins on appeal, it pays for years of litigation — and the law in your circuit can change under you.

Netflix: captions and online-only services

Deaf and hard-of-hearing subscribers sued because most of Netflix’s streaming library had no captions. In 2012 the court held that Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” service could be a place of public accommodation — even though Netflix had no physical location open to the public. Netflix agreed to caption all of its streaming content and paid about $755,000 in fees.

The lesson: in some courts, online-only businesses are covered too, and media accessibility counts.

When the DOJ steps in

The Department of Justice has settled with businesses directly, with terms that show what it expects:

• H&R Block (2014) — the first DOJ consent decree over a private company’s website: WCAG 2.0 AA conformance for its website and apps, an accessibility coordinator, training, a $45,000 civil penalty and $55,000 in damages to the people who complained.
• Peapod (2014) — the online grocer agreed to make its website and app conform to WCAG 2.0 AA and to test them regularly.
• Hy-Vee, Kroger and Rite Aid (2022) — after people with disabilities couldn’t book COVID-19 vaccine appointments online, all three agreed to make their vaccine registration portals conform to WCAG 2.1 AA.

The lesson: DOJ settlements read like a checklist: WCAG 2.1 AA, a coordinator, independent audits, training and user feedback. That checklist is what a compliance program should contain.

Celebrity and brand sites

In 2019, a blind New York resident filed a class action against Parkwood Entertainment over Beyoncé’s website, alleging that images lacked alt text and the store couldn’t be used with a screen reader. Lawsuits against well-known brands generate headlines, but most website accessibility defendants are small and mid-sized businesses — and the barriers alleged are the same.