Netflix has not claimed anything pertaining to that issue in its defense, so the court cannot rule on that issue. Netflix's primary defense was, essentially, "

Netflix has not claimed anything pertaining to that issue in its defense, so the court cannot rule on that issue. Netflix's primary defense was, essentially, "We're a website and the ADA doesn't apply to websites." (It also claims that the CVAA exempts them, but I don't think the ruling on that issue is really what folks are worried about here.) The Court's decision primarily affirms that websites are not summarily exempted from the ADA. It does not imply that all websites are subject to ADA requirements, or that all content on all websites is subject to them, or any of the other breathless hand-wavy Chicken Little style speculation that the article engages in. Netflix did make an argument pertaining tangentially to copyright, but as the ruling points out it was framed as a technical argument that was again intended to demonstrate that it exempted Netflix from the ADA on the grounds that they were a content distributor rather than a content provider. The Court ruled that this argument did not stand, but it also took time to specifically clarify that, because Netflix did not actually make the claim that they may not have had the right to generate closed captions under copyright law, that issue was not actually placed before the Court and therefore could not be addressed by the ruling. It did suggest, though, that it could be visited if a motion for summary judgment is filed. (p. 14)