[blindlaw] About the Robles v. Dominos Case

[Luis Mendez]

Dear Daniel:

I am certain that some retailers remain willing to provide alternative
telephone access.  After all, that is just good customer service.  However,
telephone access to many services is increasingly difficult to get.
Moreover, the point of the Robles litigation, as I understand it, is
furthering enablement of unassisted access to E-commerce, which is
increasingly the dominant means for conducting business.  It is unlikely
that the Robles litigation will eliminate the requirement that e-commerce
access be linked to brick-and-mortar establishments, but a successful
outcome may spur further action to address that increasingly Archaic
distinction.   

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Daniel McBride via
BlindLaw
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 4:58 PM
To: slabarre at labarrelaw.com; 'Blind Law Mailing List' <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Daniel McBride <dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] About the Robles v. Dominos Case

Scott:

Thank you for posting the attachment of the Robles opinion and the link to
the oral arguments. I have taken the time to read the opinion and listen to
the oral arguments.

There are several axioms in life to come to mind in considering the Robles
matter. First is that bad case facts make for bad case law.  Next is that
you might win the battle yet lose the war. Finally, one should be careful
what one asks for because you just might get it.

Like Mr. Robles, I am blind. Like Mr. Robles, I have occasion to order
Domino's pizza. When I am aware that Domino's has a pizza special going that
applies to "on-line" orders only, I call Domino's on the phone. I advise
them that I am a blind person and cannot access their "on-line" only
special. Not once has Domino's ever denied me their "on-line only" special
price via the phone. Every time, I get my pizza and get it at the "on-line"
only price. And I am willing to wager that Domino's would do this for all
blind persons.

What concerns me about the Robles case, and any similar case, is the
potential for untenable results for violating all three of the above tenets.

I think the Robles case carries the potential for bad case law, that it
might not be the wisest choice of battles to pick in the war and that one
just might get what they asked for.

Along with Shannon Geistler, I was completely unaware of the World Wide Web
Consortium, and WCAG, until Mitchell's post yesterday and your post today.

So I did a little research on W3C. As of today, it has 452 members. I have
looked at the entire list. It is replete with Fortune 500 giants and
includes the likes of Facebook, Google and Thompson Reuters, all of whom I
have issues with. Another red flag is that the Electronic Frontier
Foundation withdrew its membership in 2017, over differences with the group.

I can tell you that I would much rather call Domino's on the phone and be
given the "on-line only" special price than to trust the W3C with setting
standards that would affect my life. But, as stated earlier, if you ask for
it you just might get it.

I shall certainly monitor to see how Robles develops, but, if Mr. Robles has
picked the wrong battle and it results in bad case law, Robles (and the rest
of us) is sure to get what he asked for.

This concludes my rant.

Kindest regards,
Daniel McBride
Fort Worth, Texas 

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Scott C.
LaBarre via BlindLaw
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 11:11 AM
To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
Cc: Scott C. LaBarre
Subject: [blindlaw] About the Robles v. Dominos Case

Hello Everyone, there has been some discussion about the Robles case.  The
NFB has been heavily involved in this matter.  Jessie Webber of Brown,
Goldstein, and Levy argued before the 9th Circuit for 13 amici  which
included the NFB.  You can watch the oral arguments here:

 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000014434

 

I have also attached the 9th Circuit ruling which is at issue.  We are
closely monitoring this matter and will continue participating as an amicus.
I suspect that there is a very small chance that the Supreme Court will
grant cert in this matter.  

 

Best,

Scott



_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com