Web and Industry

companies facing lawsuits

  • 2018. Bishop v. Amazon.com, Inc.
  • 2018. Braulio Thorne v. Rolex Watch
  • 2018. Luc Burbon v. Fox News Network
  • 2018. Maria Mendizabal, et al. v. Burger King
  • 2017 - 2018. Maria Mendizabal v. Nike Inc.
  • 2018. Sullivan v. CNN America, Inc.
  • 2018. Thorne v. Porsche Design of America Inc.
  • 2018. Lopez v. The Hershey Company, Inc.
  • 2018. Lopez v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
  • 2018. Lopez v. Pandora Ecomm, LLC;
  • 2018. Duncan v. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
  • 2018. Camacho v. Bed Bath Beyond Inc.
  • 2018. Sullivan v. Dow Jones Company, Inc.
  • 2018. Duncan v. City National Bank
  • 2018. Duncan v. Bank of China
  • 2018. Duncan v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China USA, National Association
  • 2018. Bishop v. Signature Bank
  • 2018. Marett v. Armel Tax and Accounting Services.
  • 2017. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  • 2017. Kmart
  • 2017. McDonald's
  • 2017. Grubhub
  • 2017. Empire Today
  • 2017. Access Now
  • 2017. Inc. v. Blue Apron
  • 2017. Reed v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
  • 2017. Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
  • 2017. Robles v. Domino's Pizza
  • 2016. National Association of the Deaf v. Hulu
  • 2016. Gomez v. J. Lindeberg USA, LLC.
  • 2016. Edward Davis v. Bag'n Baggage
  • 2016. Aleeha Dudley v. Miami University
  • 2015. Jose Del-Orden v. Reebok
  • 2015. Robert Jahoda v. NBA
  • 2015. US Department of Justice v. the National Museum of Crime and Punishment
  • 2015 US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights v. Higley Unified School District
  • 2015. National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard
  • 2015. MIT
  • 2015 Mary West v. eHarmony
  • 2015. Ashley Cwikla v. Bank of America
  • 2015. Access Now Inc. v. Ace Hardware
  • 2014. National Federation of the Blind v. US Department of Education
  • 2013. Bazyn, Brown, et al. v. Safeway
  • 2013. National Federation of the Blind v. HRB Digital LLC
  • 2012. National Association for the Deaf v. Netflix
  • 2012. National Federation of the Blind v. Walt Disney
  • 2012. Kit Lau v. Charles Schwab
  • 2010 US Department of Justice v. Hilton Worldwide Inc.
  • 2009. American Council of the Blind, et al. v. Staples
  • 2009 American Council of the Blind, et al. v. CVS
  • 2008 National Federation of the Blind v. Target
  • 2008. American Council of the Blind, et al. v. Rite Aid
  • JetBlue Airways in 2010;
  • Quizno's;
  • Arby's;
  • T.G.I Friday's;
  • Red Lobster;
  • Sizzler;
  • Supercuts;
  • Bath & Body Works;
  • J.C. Penney

website under investigation

  • Van Buren County, AR;
  • Merced County, CA;
  • City of Fort Morgan, CO;
  • City of Port St. Lucie, FL;
  • Fort Meyers, FL;
  • Jacksonville, FL;
  • City of Vero Beach, FL;
  • Atlanta, GA;
  • Glynn County, GA;
  • Randolph County, GA;
  • Stewart County, GA;
  • Lumpkin County, GA;
  • City of Cedar Rapids, IA;
  • Village of Midlothian, IL;
  • St. Clair County, IL;
  • Champaign County, IL;
  • City of Dekalb, IL;
  • LaPorte County, IN;
  • City of Independence, KS;
  • The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, KS;
  • Humboldt, KS;
  • Daviess County, KY;
  • Norfolk County, MA;
  • Town of Swansea, MA;
  • City of North Adams, MA;
  • City of Muskegon, MI;
  • City of Kansas City, MO;
  • City of Poplarville, MS;
  • Robeson County, NC;
  • Wilmington, NC;
  • County of Wilson, NC;
  • Fargo, ND;
  • San Juan County, NM;
  • City of Ruidoso, NM;
  • City of Fallon, NV;
  • Chautauqua County, NY;
  • City of Niagara Falls, NY;
  • Town of Poestenkill, NY;
  • Madison County, NY;
  • Town of Vian, OK;
  • Fayette County, PA;
  • Lancaster County, PA;
  • Schuylkill County, PA;
  • City of Newport, RI;
  • Providence, RI;
  • City of West Columbia, SC;
  • City of the Isle of Palms, SC;
  • Pennington County, SD;
  • Gregg County, TX;
  • Upshur County, TX;
  • City of Wills Point, TX;
  • City of Galveston, TX;
  • McClennan County, TX;
  • Nueces County, TX;
  • City of Parowan, UT;
  • Smyth County, VA;
  • Fairfax County, VA;
  • Warrenton, VA;
  • Yakima County, WA;
  • City of Madison, WI.

WCAG2-AA. Compliance Validator

Get your website WCAG compliant

A large number of Lawsuits are being filed by Americans for ADA non-compliance of websites. This can get a website owner in deep legal trouble, not to mention the damages in lawsuit. It is imperative to get WCAG Compliance for your website.

If your website - regardless of which business you are in, is not ADA complaint, you may land up in legal battle anytime. As per the Americans with Disabilities Act signed by George H. W. Bush in 1990, all places of public accommodation need to be accessible to all. This implied all physical spaces back in the day. Moving onto the 21st century and the growing dependence on the internet for all kinds of commercial activities, advocates fighting for equal rights of the disabled population strongly feel that this 1990 law should also be applicable to the virtual space.

Advocates speaking for the ADA say that just like a physical property - public buildings, hotels and stores, a website or online portal also must be accessible to all, including people with disabilities. Today, most public places are wheelchair accessible or have extra support available for disabled customers. Similarly, a webpage should also be so designed that anyone can easily visit a website or online portal to purchase a service or product online, or just browse or research web content as they wish. A person with physical disability should not be discriminated in this regard. And hence the recent wave of ADA lawsuits have been slapped on website owners who have been neglecting this accessibility aspect of their web content. With more and more people's awareness of their rights, and some popular brands and businesses being sued in recent times, it can be a high risk not to take any action. In case of a lawsuit, the small and medium sized businesses are likely to be most affected. Fighting such a lawsuit is time and resource consuming - something the business owners may be not able to afford.

Going by the current trend, a hotel or store may have been built making it completely accessible to all kinds of guests, and yet may end up being sued for not having a website that can be accessed by people with disabilities. Once sued, the plaintiff can charge a hefty fee in compensation and the business owner is not even given a chance to rectify the website issue.

WCAG is a standard document with technical specification as well as educational resources for webmasters to make their websites ADA compliant and its content accessible to people with disabilities. To explain the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines in layman terms, these are certain referenceable technical standards laid down by a consortium of web innovators - the WAI or the Web Accessibility Initiative, that a website may follow to have its content accessible to all. These guidelines allow for the web content to be translated by a screen reading software into an audio file. For websites with audio-visual clips, the guidelines recommend that there be descriptions for the hearing impaired. All interactive functions are to be operable though the keyboard for website visitors who may not be able to operate the mouse. Soon there is going to be supplemental guidance with information beyond the standard WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, that will address how a webmaster can improve his content accessibility for visitors with low vision or even cognitive disabilities.

In December 2008, the first standard document WCAG 2.0 was published. There has been one more version since - WCAG 2.1 published in June 2018. A website content that conforms to WCAG 2.1 also conforms to WCAG 2.0. In other words, for new websites or existing websites that want to follow the compliance, you can follow WCAG 2.1 standard, and you will automatically be WCAG 2.0 complaint.

The documents WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 have about 12 to 13 guidelines under 4 main principles with individual testable success criterion. These are informative techniques with specific details and examples including HTML codes to help a webmaster adhere to the compliance. However, these are not mandatory guidelines for any webmaster. The basis for conformance to the WCAG is not the techniques, but the success criteria.

Most government websites today follow these guidelines. The private websites need to do the same and conform to the WCAG guidelines. Websites that are heavy with multiple media files such as images and videos are the ones that can be more complicated and take longer to comply.

More than 5000 business owners have found themselves in trouble just in the first six months of 2018, as per the analysis by the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, that specializes in defending ADA lawsuits. They also predict the trend to increase and the number of cases to double by the end of 2018. There is a bill pending in the House of Representatives which plans to offer 6 MONTHS time to business owners to rectify the websites and make them compliant to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. However, it hasn't been passed yet, and In light of the recent lawsuits filed, fixing the website to make it ADA compliant is a lot cheaper option for the business owner, as opposed to being slapped with a lawsuit.

Most website owners delay the transition to an ADA compliant website fearing huge expenses. Making your website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines need not cost you a fortune. And it certainly is cheaper than the cost of defending such a lawsuit. Ignoring these incidents as a passing trend and waiting for a legal notice to arrive could cost upto ten times or more in damages.

As a first step towards this issue, type in your website domain name below to validate if your website is compliant to WCAG techniques. If not, you could reach out to us to get a free quotation. The cost of redoing your website to make it ADA compliant could cost you as low as $800. Even if you have a complex website with heavy media files, we offer the most competitive rates and a reliable service to open your doors to more visitors.

Contact Us To Get Your Website WCAG Compliant

News

  • The Americans with Disabilities Act

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was passed in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The ADA has historically applied in "places of public accommodation," or businesses that are open to the public, such as restaurants, schools, movie theaters, and doctors’ offices, as well as certain private entities that meet established criteria. The ADA has also historically required brick-and-mortar businesses to accommodate disabled individuals to allow equal access to those businesses’ services, goods, and facilities, such as widening the aisles for wheelchairs or providing auxiliary aids. However, the emergence of e-commerce over the last two decades has presented a new question in the context of the ADA: Are websites places of public accommodation?

    Read More..

  • Winery Websites Must Comply

    Earlier this year, we published an article warning that websites have become the new hotbed of litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that schools across the country should take note ("Your School Could Be One Click Away From A Lawsuit"). It appears our warning was a timely one. A recent lawsuit filed against a vocational school in New York marks what we believe will serve as just the beginning of an onslaught of website accessibility complaints targeting public and private school websites.

    Read More..

  • Winery Websites Must Comply

    That ambiguity put fifteen New York wineries in a pickle after Kathy Wu of Brooklyn filed suit. Visually impaired, Wu uses screen-reading software that provides her access to website content. The suit claims the websites of some named New York wineries based in the Hudson Valley and on Long Island are in violation of ADA rules by not making e-commerce, wine club membership, reservations, hours of operation and winery location available through compatible screen-reading features.

    Read More..

  • Lawsuits targeting business websites over ADA violations are on the rise

    The boutique Avanti Hotel is known for its poolside, dog-friendly rooms. Yet its website uses the valuable opening page not to highlight the Palm Springs inn's amenities, but to explain, in stark black letters on a plain white background, that the Avanti violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Read More..

  • Winery Websites and ADA Compliance

    The recent news of lawsuits filed against New York wineries has caused industry members to ask if they face any litigation risk if their websites are not accessible to people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The answer is "maybe." There is considerable ambiguity in the law as to which companies are required to make their websites ADA-compliant and what actually constitutes ADA compliance.

    Read More..