Last week, The National Retail Federation (NRF) revealed in
a statement that it was “disappointed” that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
hear a case that would have enabled it to establish a “reasonable, nationwide
standard for evaluating web site accessibility claims filed under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).”
A central point of contention is whether a web site is a
“public accommodation” within the ADA in the same way that a physical store is.
In a brief filed with the court in July, NRF and the Retail Litigation Center
said an Appeals Court ruling had “stretched the definition too far” by deciding
that web sites and mobile applications must be judged as public accommodations,
rather than just considered as one of many ways in which a consumer might
access a retailer’s offerings.
The RTP editorial team discusses whether web sites
and mobile have become so universal that they could be considered a public
accommodation, and whether they should be regulated as such in terms of access.
Adam Blair, Editor: For those of us lucky enough
to not have major disabilities, it’s important to note that not everyone has
easy access to the screens that increasingly dominate our lives. For example,
people with low (or no) vision can’t read product descriptions or view videos,
or perhaps even access something as basic as a store locator. That’s a problem
because the laptop or mobile screen has become the starting point (and the site
of multiple return visits) for the vast majority of shopper journeys.
Retailers, reasonably enough, want some consistent rules about what they need
to do in order to make their sites accessible — currently it’s a hodgepodge of
court decisions and state laws. I’m leaning toward the idea that a web site is
essentially a public accommodation, meaning they should be mandated to be made as
accessible as possible. Moving toward equal access for everybody is not just
the right thing to do, it’s a smart business move — disabled peoples’ dollars
are the same color as everyone else’s.
Advertisement
Glenn Taylor, Senior Editor: Unfortunately this is
one of the scenarios that could never have been predicted in 1990 when the ADA
officially kicked in. It’s always difficult to set precedents for future
matters, particularly involving technology that didn’t even exist yet. With
that said, it simply makes more sense for legislation to be interpreted for the
era it’s in. In the case of Domino’s, which
inspired the current situation, it doesn’t make sense for a Domino’s
consumer who has a tough time reading the mobile site or is sensitive to the
lighting a computer emits to travel all the way to a Domino’s restaurant to buy
their food. At this point it’s common sense for retailers and quick service
restaurants to make the proper decisions to ensure they’re offering the best
experiences possible, just like when they had to comply with initial
regulations around access to their physical locations.
Bryan Wassel, Associate Editor: As my colleague Adam
pointed out, accommodating for disabilities online is both the morally and,
arguably, financially correct decision. I agree, but I also see it as a way of
future-proofing. The Internet, and e-Commerce in particular, is only growing
more important to day-to-day existence, and we will eventually hit a point
where the government is pressured to mandate accessibility standards for
retailers online rather than leave them voluntary. Laying the groundwork now, even
if it’s just basic text-to-speech functionality, can leave retailers
better-positioned for more radical changes in the future. Plus, when the time
comes, earlier actions will become a sales driver that proves your company
cared about accommodating everyone before it was necessary, while the
competition only acted when their hands were forced.
