![handle is hein.journals/osljsxcr80 and id is 1 raw text is:
OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL ONLINE
SIXTH CIRCUIT REVIEW
Are Online Spaces 'Places of Public
Accommodation' Under the ADA? It Is Still
Unclear in the Sixth Circuit.
MEAGAN DIMOND
In 1990, the United States Congress passed the American's with
Disabilities Act (ADA),_42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012)_a civil rights
law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. As
the world has moved into the digital age, courts have challenged the
application of Title III of the Act, Public Accommodations and Services
Operated by Private Entities. Id. at §§ 12181-12189.
The ADA applies to public accommodations, which are generally
businesses, including private entities, that are open to, or provide goods
or services to, the public. All the examples of public accommodations
listed in the statute are brick-and-mortar locations (think hotels,
restaurants, retail merchants, stadiums, movie theaters, and day care
centers). Where does that leave online spaces? Should people with
disabilities be afforded reasonable access accommodations on the web as
well?
These questions arise in the context of whether blind individuals
using screen reading technology are entitled to accommodations while
accessing the internet. A recent case asked whether the ADA's Title III
provisions cover online spaces, but the Sixth Circuit declined to answer.
In its August decision, Br te v_ Aeoq t Credit UIon, 936 F.3d 489
(6th Cir. 2019), the Court stopped short of answering the question of
whether Title III of the ADA protects a blind woman attempting to access
the website of a brick-and-mortar business. Instead, the Court determined
that the plaintiff lacked the prerequisite Article III standing to bring her
case.
Unfortunately, lack of standing is a common occurrence in cases
pressing the issue of ADA compliance. Injunctive relief and attorney's
fees are the only remedies available for an individual bringing a suit
against a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (2012); 42
U.S.C. § 12205 (2012). These limited remedies disincentivize many
people from bringing suit and push plaintiffs toward other non-legal
remedies, namely taking their business elsewhere. To make the situation
even more difficult, individuals must have Article III standing to bring a
case in federal court.
2019]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/osljsxcr80&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most