Vondran Legal® - Robles v. Domino's and Other Important ADA Website Accessibility Cases Every Business Should Know. Call us if your website has become the subject of an ADA website dispute. Call (877) 276-5084.
What Are Website ADA Lawsuits?
Website ADA lawsuits generally allege that a website is not accessible to individuals with visual, hearing, mobility, or other disabilities.
Many lawsuits involve allegations that:
-
Images lack alternative text ("alt text")
-
Website forms cannot be completed using assistive technology
-
Navigation is not keyboard accessible
-
Shopping carts are inaccessible
-
Checkout processes cannot be completed by screen-reader users
-
Product descriptions cannot be accessed
-
Website content is incompatible with screen-reading software
In many cases, plaintiffs allege that they attempted to browse or purchase products online but encountered accessibility barriers that prevented equal access.
The Landmark Cases Shaping Website Accessibility Litigation
By Attorney Steve® | Vondran Legal®
Website accessibility lawsuits continue to be filed against businesses across the United States at an unprecedented pace. Whether you operate an e-commerce store, restaurant, medical practice, law firm, educational platform, or service-based business, understanding the major legal decisions in this area is essential.
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990—well before modern websites, mobile applications, podcasts, and streaming media existed—courts have increasingly been asked to determine whether the ADA applies to digital content.
The following cases have become the foundation of modern ADA website accessibility litigation.
1. Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019)
If there is one case every business owner should know, it is Robles v. Domino's Pizza.
Facts
Guillermo Robles, a blind individual, alleged that Domino's website and mobile application were incompatible with his screen-reader software. According to the complaint, he was unable to complete an online pizza order or fully utilize the company's digital ordering system.
Domino's Defense
Domino's argued that:
-
The ADA did not clearly apply to websites and apps.
-
The Department of Justice had not adopted formal website accessibility regulations.
-
Imposing liability without regulations would violate due process.
Court's Holding
The Ninth Circuit rejected Domino's arguments and held that the ADA applied because the website and app connected customers to the goods and services offered through Domino's physical restaurants. The court further held that the absence of specific DOJ regulations did not eliminate the company's obligations under the ADA.
Why This Case Matters
Robles is widely considered the most important ADA website accessibility case in America.
The decision effectively established that:
-
Businesses cannot rely on the lack of formal regulations as a defense.
-
Websites and mobile apps connected to physical businesses may be subject to ADA requirements.
-
Digital accessibility litigation is likely here to stay.
Business Takeaway
If your company sells products, schedules appointments, processes transactions, or provides customer services through its website, Robles should be considered required reading.
2. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.
452 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Facts
The National Federation of the Blind alleged that Target's website contained barriers that prevented blind users from accessing products, store information, and online services.
Court's Holding
The court allowed the ADA claims to proceed because the website had a sufficient connection—or "nexus"—to Target's physical retail stores.
Why This Case Matters
Target was one of the earliest major cases recognizing that websites can create ADA liability when they are integrated with physical business operations.
Business Takeaway
If your website serves as an extension of your physical business, courts may treat it as part of the overall customer experience.
3. National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.
869 F.Supp.2d 196 (D. Mass. 2012)
Facts
The National Association of the Deaf alleged that Netflix failed to provide adequate captioning for portions of its streaming video content.
Court's Holding
The court allowed ADA claims to proceed despite Netflix operating primarily through an online platform.
Why This Case Matters
Netflix expanded the accessibility conversation beyond websites and into digital media.
The case highlighted the importance of:
-
Closed captioning
-
Video accessibility
-
Streaming services
-
Multimedia content
Business Takeaway
Companies publishing videos, webinars, training materials, and educational content should evaluate captioning practices carefully.
4. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021)
Facts
A legally blind customer alleged that Winn-Dixie's website was inaccessible and prevented him from accessing coupons and pharmacy-related information.
Why This Case Matters
The litigation generated significant debate regarding whether websites themselves constitute "places of public accommodation" under the ADA.
The case is often cited because it reflects a different judicial approach than Robles and illustrates the continuing disagreement among courts regarding website accessibility standards.
Business Takeaway
Businesses should not assume that favorable decisions in one jurisdiction will protect them nationwide.
5. Haynes v. Dunkin' Donuts LLC
741 Fed. Appx. 752 (11th Cir. 2018)
Facts
A visually impaired plaintiff alleged that Dunkin's website prevented meaningful access to information regarding store locations and services.
Court's Holding
The Eleventh Circuit allowed the ADA claim to proceed.
Why This Case Matters
The case reinforced the growing trend of allowing accessibility claims involving websites connected to physical businesses.
Business Takeaway
Restaurants, franchises, and retail chains remain common targets for accessibility litigation.
6. Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC
268 F.Supp.3d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)
Facts
A blind consumer alleged that the company's website was inaccessible.
Court's Holding
The court held that ADA protections could extend to online businesses, even where a traditional brick-and-mortar nexus was less significant.
Why This Case Matters
The decision reflects a broader interpretation of the ADA that has been adopted by several courts.
Business Takeaway
Online-only businesses may still face website accessibility claims.
7. National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University
Facts
Harvard faced claims alleging that online educational content lacked adequate captioning.
Resolution
The litigation resulted in a settlement requiring significant improvements to accessibility practices involving online video content.
Why This Case Matters
Educational institutions and businesses providing online training materials should pay close attention to captioning requirements.
8. National Association of the Deaf v. MIT
Facts
MIT faced similar allegations involving inaccessible online educational videos.
Resolution
MIT agreed to implement extensive accessibility improvements.
Why This Case Matters
The case reinforced that archived content may create accessibility obligations.
Business Takeaway
Older video libraries and educational archives should not be ignored during accessibility reviews.
What These Cases Mean for Businesses Today
Although courts continue to differ on certain legal issues, several themes consistently emerge:
Websites Matter
Courts increasingly recognize websites as important gateways to goods and services.
Mobile Apps Matter
Accessibility obligations frequently extend beyond websites to mobile applications.
Videos Matter
Netflix, Harvard, and MIT demonstrate the importance of captioning and multimedia accessibility.
Podcasts May Be the Next Frontier
Although podcast-specific ADA litigation remains relatively limited, businesses should strongly consider providing transcripts for audio content.
The "No Regulations" Defense Is Weak
One of the most important lessons from Robles is that courts may impose ADA obligations even without detailed federal website accessibility regulations.
Common Website Accessibility Issues That Lead to Lawsuits
Many ADA demand letters focus on:
-
Missing alternative text
-
Screen-reader incompatibility
-
Keyboard navigation failures
-
Inaccessible forms
-
Poor color contrast
-
Missing video captions
-
Lack of podcast transcripts
-
Inaccessible PDF documents
-
Mobile application barriers
How Vondran Legal Can Help
At Vondran Legal®, we help businesses evaluate and respond to website accessibility claims, ADA demand letters, and digital accessibility disputes.
Our services may include:
ADA Website Demand Letter Defense
-
Claim evaluation
-
Settlement analysis
-
Strategic response planning
-
Risk assessment
Website Accessibility Litigation
-
Federal court representation
-
Motion practice
-
Standing analysis
-
Litigation defense
Accessibility Risk Reviews
-
Website audits
-
Vendor contract review
-
Documentation review
-
Compliance planning
Digital Media Accessibility Counseling
We assist businesses with legal issues involving:
-
Websites
-
Mobile applications
-
Videos
-
Podcasts
-
Streaming content
-
Educational platforms
-
Downloadable PDFs
Contact Attorney Steve®
If your company has received an ADA website demand letter or accessibility lawsuit, early legal evaluation can help identify potential defenses, remediation options, and risk-reduction strategies.
Vondran Legal®
The Business Trial Lawyers
Helping businesses navigate the evolving landscape of website accessibility law, ADA compliance disputes, and digital content litigation. Fill out the form below to discuss your matter.
