ADA Doesn’t Apply to Newspaper’s Website-Suris v. Gannett – Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The plaintiff is deaf. He tried to observe movies on the USA Today web site however couldn’t because of the lack of closed captioning. USA Today defended on the grounds that its web site isn’t a spot of public lodging. The courtroom treats this as a simple case:

Neither a newspaper writer nor a digital media content material supplier falls inside any of the twelve enumerated locations of public lodging classes under the ADA….

Plaintiff points to defendants’ workplaces, video and tv studios, weblog amenities, dwell occasion areas, internet and web site companies, newspaper publishing amenities, telecommunication and promoting workplaces, and internet hosting areas, arguing that these physical amenities function “in conjunction with its website” and render defendants a spot of public lodging. These varied amenities owned and operated by defendants could help the operation of its web site, however “the mere fact that [services] [were] organized at the defendants’ offices, which presumably are places of public accommodation, is not a sufficient link to support application of the ADA.”

The courtroom acknowledges the precedent applying the ADA to retailers’ web sites, but it surely doesn’t lengthen to a standalone content material web site. The opinion cites the 2015 NFB v. Scribd precedent however doesn’t distinguish it. Instead, choose merely says the Second Circuit hasn’t addressed the subject. From the courtroom’s conclusion reaching a distinct outcome than the Scribd case, I infer the courtroom disagreed with the Scribd ruling.

Case quotation: Suris v. Gannett Co., 2021 WL 2953218 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2021)

Some related weblog posts: