In a recent blog post, the Napa and Sonoma law firm of Dickenson Peatman and Fogerty (DPF), a company that handles many legal aspects of the alcoholic beverage industry, explained: “ There is considerable ambiguity in the law as to which companies are required to create their websites. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant and what actually constitutes ADA compliance .”
This ambiguity put fifteen New York wineries in trouble after Kathy Wu of Brooklyn filed a lawsuit. Visually impaired, Wu uses screen reading software that allows her to access content on the website. The suit claims that the websites of certain New York wineries based in the Hudson Valley and Long Island violate ADA rules by not making e-commerce, wine club memberships available , reservations, opening hours and vineyard location via a compatible screen. reading features.
The complaint states that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, “approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2 million who are blind… approximately 400,000 visually impaired people live in New York State.”
Below Title III of the Federal ADA By law, businesses open to the public are required to provide people with disabilities with full and equal access to “goods, services, facilities and accommodations.”
This lawsuit claims that the defendants discriminate against blind and visually impaired people on their websites. According to the DPF blog, “Plaintiffs seek an injunction regarding their ADA claim and an order requiring wineries to take “all necessary steps” to make their websites ADA compliant.
States have passed similar disability laws; New York and California are among them. Some local governments also have disability access laws. In fact, because some New York wineries operate physical retail locations within New York City limits, lawsuits against them have claimed they are violating the rules. New York City Human Rights Law by limiting access.
Everyone knows that many wineries operate a (physical) tasting room on site. There, ADA certainly applies. But DPF says the courts haven’t been very helpful in determining which companies must make websites ADA compliant. For example, according to the DPF, “the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a website that is not connected to a place of public accommodation or that is attached to a place that is not considered a a place of public accommodation is not subject to the ADA. .”
However, according to the DPF, “…there are cases in which courts have found that a stand-alone website service without a physical location may itself be considered a place of public accommodation and subject to the requirements of the ADA. » This means that wine producers who don’t have a physical location but sell through a website may need to comply.
The really crazy part of this story is that wineries looking to bring their websites into compliance with the ADA won’t be able to find guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on how to do so. In an article on this topic, a DOJ spokesperson told the Wine spectator the department is “evaluating whether specific web accessibility standards are necessary to ensure compliance with the ADA.”
The only guidelines wineries have come from the International Standards Organization. World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0AA). The website’s guidelines include screen reading software and give users the ability to customize color, word spacing and text size.
DPF states: “The DOJ has previously argued in ADA enforcement actions that businesses can comply by making their websites and mobile applications compliant with WCAG 2.0 AA standards. » Yet nothing in federal law indicates that implementing WCAG 2.0 AA makes a winery website ADA compliant.
Nonetheless, DPF recommends that wineries “check with their IT vendors and professionals to determine whether their websites, apps, and mobile sites have implemented accessibility features in accordance with WCAG 2.0 AA…implementation of Such features can not only help avoid lawsuits, but also signal that your humidor is accessible to all consumers.
Interestingly, according to the Alliance for Prosecution Reform New York, last year saw an increase in federal ADA Title III lawsuits filed against wineries and other small businesses: 4,965 lawsuits were filed in the first six months of 2018, more than half of the 7,663 lawsuits filed in 2017. Of the 4,965 this year, 1,026 lawsuits were filed in New York.
