It’s a little more tightly scoped than that. From what I’m seeing, no parties are arguing that websites are themselves Title III “public accommodations”. Rather

It’s a little more tightly scoped than that. From what I’m seeing, no parties are arguing that websites are themselves Title III “public accommodations”. Rather, the 9th circuit held that the Domino’s websites were part of the Domino’s services at their brick & mortar restaurants. In other words, this case only directly applies to physical businesses with an online component (buy-online-pick-up-in-store or similar). I’ll be curious to see – assuming that Robles eventually wins – if this case is ever used to argue that an online-only business is subject to Title III. It doesn’t seem like a slam dunk connection. (Not a lawyer, but I do enjoy reading court documents.)