Subject Matter Index All Decisions About Us Statutes Articles Online Resources Help

Home

Martin Samson, author of the Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions

Recent Addition

Designer Skin LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., et al.
Unauthorized internet reseller of plaintiff’s products is not guilty of trademark infringement, and does not cause actionable initial interest confusion, by using plaintiff’s trademarks in meta tags of website at which plaintiff’s and its competitors’ products are sold, and in...

Americans With Disabilities Act - Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions - Updated September 26, 2006

227 F.Supp.2d 1312, Case No. 02-21734-CIV-Seitz/Bandstra (S.D.Fla., October 18, 2002)

Court holds that defendant Southwest Airlines Co.'s web site is not a "place of public accommodation" under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ("ADA") and accordingly that Southwest has no obligation under Title III to make its web site accessible to the visually impaired.  Title III of the ADA prohibits those who operate "places of public accommodation" from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.  The Court held that under the plain and unambiguous language of the ADA a "public accommodation must be a physical, concrete structure."  Because defendant's website was not such a structure, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for relief under Title III of the ADA.

No. C 06-01802 MHP (N.D. Ca., Sept. 5, 2006)

Denying, in part, a motion to dismiss, the Court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with claims that allege that the failure of defendant Target Corporation ("Target") to make its Target.com website accessible to the blind violates various statutes that prohibit discrimination against the disabled, including the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12182.  The Court did, however, dismiss so much of plaintiffs' claims that sought to challenge the accessibility of those portions of the Target.com site that "offer information and services unconnected to Target stores."  At this time, plaintiffs were only allowed to proceed with claims that challenged the accessibility of portions of the Target.com site that, if inaccessible, would "impede the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Target stores."  The Court noted that it may, in the future, permit plaintiffs to pursue broader claims if it was established that Target's site and stores are part of an integrated merchandising effort.

The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for mandatory injunctive relief, seeking to compel Target to make its site accessible to the blind.  Issues of fact as to whether the site, as presently constructed, was accessible to blind internet users using 'screen reader' programs precluded a finding at this time that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and mandated denial of their request for injunctive relief.

Disclaimer  |  Attorney Advertising
© Copyright 1997-2016 Martin H. Samson All Rights Reserved
Printer Friendly