A Note on How We’ll Be Handling Americans with Disabilities Act Class Actions

For some time now, ClassAction.org has been monitoring a sharp influx of proposed class action lawsuits filed over allegations that the websites run by companies big and small are discriminatory toward blind and/or deaf individuals in apparent violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As a more effective and practical way of covering this increasingly unwieldy number of, as we refer to them, “ADA-website” lawsuits—not to mention a more concentrated means of examining these cases from a macro standpoint—we’ll be posting a roundup of these cases on our Newswire.

[Note: the cases included in these roundups concern only allegations of online ADA violations. Lawsuits alleging businesses have violated the ADA through physically constructed barriers will get normal Newswire write-ups.]

In this week’s roundup: Washington Post, USA Today, Jenny Craig, eHarmony and more

The last month or so has seen the Washington Post, eHarmony, Jenny Craig, Progressive Insurance, Dress Barn, and many other companies hit with class action lawsuits alleging their respective websites are discriminatory toward blind and visually impaired (and, in some cases, deaf) internet users. The cases all cite ostensible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law that, while providing irrefutable guidance on accessibility in the real world when it comes to brick-and-mortar businesses, is woefully inadequate in setting rules for compliance for websites.

As you’ll notice below, the above-mentioned companies are not the only ones saddled with allegations that their online properties are not inclusionary for ADA-covered internet users. The lawsuits here seek to take the defendants to task for their alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their sites in a manner that’s fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and/or visually impaired consumers. 

The far majority of these ADA-website cases stem from allegations that the websites in question are not compatible with screen-reading software common used by blind individuals to browse websites. Moreover, such cases usually claim the defendants’ websites are so linked to a company’s physical location (if one exists) that they qualify as a “place of public accommodation” and are therefore subject to ADA regulations. Other complaints, similarly, allege the videos found on certain websites unlawfully lack closed captioning, which the plaintiffs claim excludes deaf individuals from enjoying and accessing content available to non-deaf users.

Below are the ADA-website complaints that have come across our desks over the last month or so. 

Our previous coverage of proposed class action cases alleging both online and physical violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act can be read here.