3 ms·
I'm surprised that this is still getting litigated and having lengthy trials or opinions. You might remember that way back in *2002* this very same question ca
by supernova87a 6y ago
I'm surprised that this is still getting litigated and having lengthy trials or opinions.
You might remember that way back in *2002* this very same question came up regarding Southwest Airlines's website, and it was ruled that it was not a physical place covered by the ADA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now,_Inc._v._Southwest_Airlines_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now,_Inc._v._Southwest_....
I think what it speaks to most is that Congress needs to address the question once and for all to not have this issue decided over and over by the courts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tzs 6y agoHere's your link in a form that gets through HN's formatting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now,_Inc._v._Southwest_Airlines_Co%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now,_Inc._v._Southwest_... The last character of links ending in "." often gets eaten by HN. Writing it as %2e makes it work.
- supernova87a 6y agoah, thank you!