California Court of Appeals Holds ADA Accessibility Requirement Does Not Apply to Online Only Websites

In an opinion dated August 1, 2022, the California Court of Appeals put an end to California lawsuits brought against online-only businesses alleging disability discrimination due to inaccessibility of their websites. Agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that such websites are not “public accommodations” covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Further, the Court held that maintaining an inaccessible website does not constitute discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §51 et seq. (the “Unruh Act”).

In Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 2022 WL 3025828, Martinez had alleged that Cot’n Wash violated the Unruh Act by intentionally maintaining a retail website that was inaccessible to the visually impaired because it was not fully compatible with screen reading software. A plaintiff can recover under the Unruh Act on two alternate theories: (1) a violation of the ADA or (2) denial of access to a business establishment based on intentional discrimination. The trial court had held that the alleged inaccessibility did not violate the ADA and that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish a discriminatory intent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on both points.

As to the ADA violation theory, the Court of Appeals noted that, in order for Title III of the ADA to apply, Cot’n Wash’s website must constitute a “place of public accommodation” and that, under current law, that phrase cannot be read as including websites without any connection to a physical space (such as, a brick-and-mortar location). The Court of Appeals further noted that, despite Congress recognizing the ADA’s lack of clarity on this point for over 20 years, neither it nor the Department of Justice had taken any definitive action to clarify the issue. Thus, the Court of Appeals declined to expand the scope of the law when Congress has chosen not to do so.

As to the Unruh Act claim, the Court of Appeals noted that the California Supreme Court has held that the discriminatory effect of a facially neutral policy or action is not alone a basis for inferring intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act. Thus, merely because Martinez made Cot’n Wash aware of the discriminatory effect of its facially neutral website does not infer intentional discrimination.

This decision is significant for online-only businesses as plaintiffs cannot successfully sue them for inaccessible websites in California state or federal courts. The decision aligns the California courts with the long held position of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that a website is not a place of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA. As such, it should reduce the number of lawsuits brought in California courts by plaintiffs seeking to recover under the Unruh Act’s $4,000 minimum statutory damages provision.

That said, given the significance of this decision, Martinez can be expected to seek review from the California Supreme Court. So, we may not yet have the final word on this issue. In the meantime, businesses operating websites in California should continue to consult with their counsel to determine whether their websites comply with state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination.