On April 7, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Eleventh Circuit) ruled in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Winn-Dixie) that websites are not places of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ( (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021)). This ruling appears to establish a split with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held in Robles v. Domino's Pizza LLC that Domino's Pizza's (Domino's) website and mobile app are subject to the ADA (913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122, 205 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2019)). The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the Central District of California's holding that the ADA applied to Domino's website and mobile app as there is a nexus between the online services and Domino's physical stores. For more information about Robles, see Legal Update, Ninth Circuit Rules that Domino's Website and Mobile App Are Subject to the ADA.

In June 2017, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in one of the first website accessibility cases to go to trial, found that the Winn-Dixie grocery store chain's website was a place of public accommodation because it was heavily integrated with its physical stores. The plaintiff, who was legally blind, alleged that he could not access certain website features because the website was incompatible with screen reader software.

The Southern District of Florida held that there was a sufficient nexus between the grocery stores and the company's website because the website services identified in the plaintiff's complaint, including the ability to fill prescriptions, were directly related to the physical stores. The Eleventh Circuit also found that the website violated the ADA because it was not sufficiently accessible to visually impaired customers. Because the court deemed the store chain's website inaccessible, Winn-Dixie would be required to make its website accessible even though the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not yet established regulatory standards for online accessibility.

In reversing the lower court's decision, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the nexus standard and further complicated an existing circuit court split on the issue of website accessibility liability. The Eleventh Circuit found that:

(Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021).)

The Eleventh Circuit's decision that websites are not considered places of public accommodation under the ADA is consistent with the court's previous decisions. However, in reversing the lower court's decision, the Eleventh Circuit established a high burden for plaintiffs to satisfy when proving that an inaccessible website violates the ADA. Plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit must now prove that the inaccessibility of a website is an intangible barrier that prevents them from accessing the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a physical location. They must also show that the inaccessibility of a website resulted in the plaintiffs being excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently from other individuals in physical stores.

The court also distinguished Gil from other notable ADA cases, including the Ninth Circuit's Robles v. Domino's Pizza LLC. In distinguishing Gil, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the lower court and stated that even though the website allowed visitors to fill prescriptions and redeem digital coupons, the Eleventh Circuit viewed it as a website of limited use. Winn-Dixie's website did not create an intangible barrier because all purchases occurred in-store and transactions initiated on the website could only be completed in-store. This scenario is different than that of Robles, in which Domino's made pizza sales through its website.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded its opinion by acknowledging the inconvenience web inaccessibility may present to a user. However, it noted that Congress is ultimately responsible for resolving issues relating to website accessibility under the ADA, not the courts.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision in Gil could alleviate some of the pressure that website accessibility lawsuits have posed to businesses that also have physical locations. However, businesses should still stay abreast of any new regulations or standards the DOJ issues on this topic in the future. 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.