3 ms·
The law has covered websites for decades. It used to be not that much of a problem because screen readers worked well enough with plain html.
by 0xEFF 7y ago
The law has covered websites for decades. It used to be not that much of a problem because screen readers worked well enough with plain html.
- zaroth 7y agoPretty sure the law doesn't say anything in particular about websites. I don't usually find myself scratching my head at SCOTUS. Full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services is the pizza, not the website. The website is just one means of obtaining said pizza.
- jerf 7y agoAs I said in another comment about another case that didn't make it, the acceptance rate of the Supreme Court is single-digit percentages. Don't overinterpret them not accepting a case. They have to not accept a lot of cases. It may not be entirely meaningless, but it isn't very meaningful either. There will be another case about this in the future if they do choose to take it up. I'm sure this is a perennial topic.
- pseudalopex 7y agoRobles claims Domino's wouldn't sell the same goods for the same price over the phone.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomnipotent 7y ago> The law has covered websites for decades. Except it hasn't. The U.S. legal system is based on precedence (common law), and other than a scattering of local Title III judgements (Long v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC, Winn-Dixie, Blick Art) there is no concrete or shared understanding of how ADA applies to e-commerce. I welcome all these lawsuits, for no other reason that we'll reach a consensus sooner-than-later on compliance.