#Supreme court accessibility screen reader free
To get started, find out if your site is compliant by requesting our free site accessibility analysis. We certify our solution with a public-facing declaration, and we help companies that have been sued, walking them through the steps of navigating legal action, addressing it head on, and protecting companies into the future. We manage your digital accessibility from start to finish, continuously monitoring and maintaining compliance. From there, our team and technology take over. Our solution simply requires embedding a JavaScript. That’s why we’ve committed to eradicating digital access barriers. It’s AudioEye’s belief that failure to provide unimpeded access to online information is like failure to provide ramps and rails at your physical location. But most importantly, let’s support individuals of all abilities to ensure they can fully interact with your online information, purchase your products and utilize your services – without barrier. The tsunami of legal activity is likely only gaining strength given the Domino’s case development.īy denying Domino’s petition to hear whether its website is required to be accessible, the Supreme Court is essentially maintaining what has been the status quo, which, we believe, means more lawsuits for the foreseeable future. In fact, lawsuits aimed at specific industry vertical, such as the automotive industry and restaurants, have skyrocketed. The majority of defendants are online retailers, but no industry is immune. In 2018, there were more than 2,250 digital accessibility lawsuits filed, nearly triple the number from 2017.Ģ019 is shaping up to exceed that number. And plaintiffs are suing by the thousands. While the ADA doesn’t explicitly mention the Internet, overwhelmingly, courts are ruling in favor of accessibility. What does this mean for you, a business owner with a website? This affirms the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which held that the “alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises-which are places of public accommodation.” So what does this mean for digital accessibility? And, just this week, the Supreme Court denied Domino’s petition. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. ADA Title III is a regulation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public accommodations. Today, many courts are interpreting “places of public accommodations” to include the Internet – arguably the world’s largest infrastructure.Īfter years of arguments and appeals, Domino’s petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case after the Ninth U.S. Robles claims inaccessible online content equates to a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Three years ago, Guillermo Robles, who is blind, filed suit against Domino’s claiming its website and mobile app are not accessible to those who rely on a screen reader to navigate online content. If the issue of digital accessibility is on your radar, you may be closely following the now-infamous Domino’s digital accessibility case.