Ninth Circuit Rules ADA Accessibility Rules Apply to Corporate Websites & Apps

Home / Blog / Business Litigation / Ninth Circuit Rules ADA Accessibility Rules Apply to Corporate Websites & Apps
Ninth Circuit Rules ADA Accessibility Rules Apply to Corporate Websites & Apps

In Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to websites and mobile applications, finding that, “The alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation.”

The case was on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which had granted a motion to dismiss by Domino’s on the basis of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  That doctrine allows courts to dismiss or stay litigation pending a government agency’s resolution of an issue.  In this case, the court found that since the Department of Justice had not disseminated rules that defined website accessibility or given guidance on how to make websites accessible, finding that Domino’s website was not ADA-compliant would be a violation of the company’s due process rights.

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit raised three issues:

  1. Whether the ADA applies to Domino’s website and mobile app;
  2. Whether a ruling that the ADA does apply would raise due process concerns; and
  3. Whether invocation of the primary jurisdiction doctrine was correct based on the DOJ’s failure to provide guidance on making websites ADA-compliant.

On the first issue, the Ninth Circuit sided with the district court, which found that the ADA does apply to Domino’s website and app based on the “nexus between Domino’s website and app and physical restaurants.”

As to the second issue, the Ninth Circuit said that the lack of guidance from the DOJ does not relieve Domino’s of the duty to comply with the ADA, noting that the company had received notice as far back as 1996 on the necessity for its online offerings to be accessible to disabled customers.  The court noted that, “While we understand why Domino’s wants DOJ to issue specific guidelines for website and app accessibility, the Constitution only requires that Domino’s receive fair notice of its legal duties, not a blueprint for compliance with its statutory obligations.”

On the third issue, the Ninth Circuit said that the district court had erred in its application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine, stating that the district court was fully competent to apply the ADA to the facts of the case.

The Ninth Circuit returned the case to the district court to decide, following discovery, whether or not the Domino’s website and app comply with ADA mandates for “full and equal enjoyment of its products and services.”

Williams Mestaz, L.L.P., is a law firm with decades of experience in commercial litigation, including business divorce, aviation, and high stakes litigation. Contact us at (602) 256-9400 and schedule a time to meet with us today.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us, though doing so does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Our description of what we believe to be superior technology and how we win cases reflects our typical approach to litigation, which we believe:  (i) gives us a competitive advantage, and (ii) is responsible for any success we have had. But we do not win every case. Other lawyers may have technology or approaches that they believe gives them an advantage. Also, the results that we have obtained in other cases or that are described in our clients’ testimonials do not guarantee, promise, or predict the outcome of your case, which depends on the law, facts, and evidence specific to it.