California Federal District Court Finds Domino's Pizza's Website Inaccessible under ADA and Orders WCAG Compliance | Practical Law

California Federal District Court Finds Domino's Pizza's Website Inaccessible under ADA and Orders WCAG Compliance | Practical Law

On June 23, 2021, the US District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Domino's Pizza (Domino's) violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by having a website that was inaccessible to plaintiff, who is blind. (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, No. 16-6599 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2021)). The court ordered Domino's to bring its website into compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 but ordered the case to continue regarding Domino's mobile app, as the app's accessibility remained in dispute.

California Federal District Court Finds Domino's Pizza's Website Inaccessible under ADA and Orders WCAG Compliance

by Practical Law Commercial Transactions
Published on 02 Jul 2021 • California, USA (National/Federal)
On June 23, 2021, the US District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Domino's Pizza (Domino's) violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by having a website that was inaccessible to plaintiff, who is blind. (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, No. 16-6599 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2021)). The court ordered Domino's to bring its website into compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 but ordered the case to continue regarding Domino's mobile app, as the app's accessibility remained in dispute.
On June 23, 2021, the US District Court for the Central District of California (Central District) granted summary judgment to plaintiff and ruled that Domino's Pizza (Domino's) violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by having a website that was inaccessible to plaintiff, who is blind. (Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, No. 16-6599 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2021)). The court ordered Domino's to bring its website into compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 but ordered the case to continue regarding Domino's mobile app, as the app's accessibility remained in dispute.

Facts

Guillermo Robles, a blind man, unsuccessfully attempted to order a custom pizza from Domino's website. Robles stated that Domino's website and mobile app were not designed to read Robles' screen-reading software that he used to access the internet. In September 2016, Robles sued Domino's for failure to design its website and mobile app in accordance with the ADA.

Procedural History

Prior to the Central District's June 23, 2021 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim, the procedural history of this case involved:
  • Plaintiff's appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit), which reversed the Central District's dismissal of this case and remanded it to the same.
  • A petition for certiorari filed by Domino's, which the US Supreme Court denied.
For additional background on this case, see Legal Update, Ninth Circuit Rules that Domino's Website and Mobile App Are Subject to the ADA.

Holding

On remand, the Central District:
  • Rejected Domino's argument that the ADA did not cover its website and mobile app because it did not own the physical stores where the pizza would be picked up, precluding a "nexus" between Domino's online services and the stores. The Central District noted that the Ninth Circuit had already found that the alleged inaccessibility of the website and app hindered access to the goods and services of its Domino's pizza franchises, which are places of public accommodation.
  • Concluded that Domino's website violated the ADA because no expert found that the website was fully accessible. Therefore, the court ordered Domino's to bring its website into compliance with WCAG 2.0 guidelines, though it did not specify which level of compliance would be required, nor a timeline for compliance. For more information about WCAG 2.0, see Practice Note, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Website Compliance: WCAG 2.0 Compliance.
  • Concluded that having a telephone line that plaintiff could use to place an order did not provide equal access when he was placed on hold for over 45 minutes on two occasions.
  • Found that the ADA claim was not moot because:
    • the website was still not fully accessible; and
    • the accessibility of the mobile app remained disputed because it was accessible in 2016 but in 2020 a defense expert witness was able to order pizza using the app and screen reading software.
  • Required Domino's to pay $4,000 in damages, as well as the plaintiff's attorney's fees. The plaintiff had sought $4,000 for each visit he made to the website, but the court instead found that there was one overarching violation.
For more information about ADA online services compliance, see Practice Note, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Website Compliance and Legal Updates, Is Your Website ADA Compliant? and Dunkin' Donuts Website Violates the ADA: Eleventh Circuit.