Thanks for sharing this.
This will most certainly help us if the case is upheld by the Supreme Court
-- I assume Netflix will appeal. If they don't then we will have a
situation where the ADA may apply in that federal court district and not in
the rest of the country.
Brian Miller
Alexandria, VA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Evans
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:01 PM
> To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nfb-talk] Fw: [ADA Expertise] Fwd: Court Rules ADA
> Applies toWeb-Based Businesses
>
> Dear All,
>
> This may help us too.
>
> David Evans, NFBF and GD Jack.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Dubin
> To: drevans at bellsouth.net
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:47 PM
> Subject: [ADA Expertise] Fwd: Court Rules ADA Applies to
> Web-Based Businesses
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bill Hecker <ada14u at aol.com>
> To: Ken Nakata <k.nakata at hisoftware.com>
> Subject: Fwd: Court Rules ADA Applies to Web-Based Businesses
>
>
>
>
> Subject: [FedAccessibility] Court Rules ADA Applies to
> Web-Based Businesses
>
>
>
> Federal District Court in Massachusetts First in Country
> to Hold that the Americans with Disabilities Act Applies to
> Website-Only Businesses
>
> Judge Denies Netflix's Motion for Judgment on the
> Pleadings and Allows Disability Civil Rights Case, National
> Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Netflix, Case No.
> 3:11-cv-30168, to Move Forward
>
> The National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"), the
> nation's premier civil rights organization of deaf and hard
> of hearing individuals, won a major victory today when Judge
> Ponsor denied defendant Netflix's Motion for Judgment on the
> Pleadings seeking dismissal of the case. The District Court
> of Massachusetts is the first court in the country to hold
> that the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") applies to
> website-only businesses. The underlying l! awsuit alleges
> that Netflix violates the ADA by failing to provide closed
> captioning on most of its "Watch Instantly" programming
> streamed on the Internet, thereby denying equal access to the
> deaf and hard of hearing community.
>
> Netflix argued that the ADA applies only to physical
> places and therefore could not apply to website-only
> businesses like Netflix's "Watch Instantly" streaming
> service. Judge Ponsor denied the motion, stating that it
> would be "irrational to conclude" that: "places of public
> accommodation are limited to actual physical structures...In
> a society in which business is increasingly conducted online,
> excluding businesses that sell services through the Internet
> from the ADA would run afoul of the purposes of the ADA and
> would severely frustrate Congress's intent that individuals
> with disabilities fully enjoy the goods, services, privileges
> and advantages, availab! le indiscriminately to other members
> of the general public." Moreover, Judge Ponsor stated that
> the fact that the ADA "does not include web-based services as
> a specific example of a public accommodation is irrelevant"
> since such web-based services did not exist when the ADA was
> passed in 1990 and because "the legislative history of the
> ADA makes clear that Congress intended the ADA to adapt to
> changes in technology."
>
> The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund's
> Directing Attorney, Arlene Mayerson, stated: "By recognizing
> that web-sites are covered by the ADA, the court has ensured
> that the ADA stays relevant as much of our society moves from
> Main Street to the Internet. Netflix's argument that the
> neighborhood video store is covered by the ADA, but it, with
> its over 20 million subscribers, is not, was soundly rejected
> by the Court."
>
> "Thi! s victory ensures that the ADA will continue to be
> a powerful force in our rapidly changing lives, protecting
> our right to equal access on the Internet," said NAD
> President Bobbie Beth Scoggins. "Netflix's flat-out refusal
> to fully serve our community simply because it is an
> Internet-based business is unacceptable. Leaving millions of
> deaf and hard of hearing consumers without equal access is
> not an option."
>
> "This legal ruling is a major decision that ensures the
> ADA remains current with this technological age and makes it
> possible for deaf and hard of hearing people and people with
> disabilities to have full access to the same programs and
> services available to everyone else," said NAD CEO Howard Rosenblum.
>
> In addition, Netflix argued that the case should be
> dismissed because it does not own copyrights to its
> programming and therefore cannot be forced to provide closed
> ! captions and that the 21st Century Communications and Video
> Accessibility Act ("CVAA") "carves out" all video programming
> streamed on the Internet as separate from the ADA. Judge
> Ponsor found that at this stage, the Plaintiffs had
> sufficiently alleged that Netflix "owns, leases..., or
> operates" a place of public accommodation for purposes of the
> ADA and that the CVAA does not "carve out" streaming
> programming from the ADA because there is "no conflict
> between the statutes" and there is no indication from
> Congress to the contrary.
>
> In addition to the NAD, other Plaintiffs include the
> Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and
> Hearing-Impaired (WMAD/HI) and a deaf Massachusetts resident.
>
> The plaintiffs are represented by the Disability Rights
> Education & Defense Fund in Berkeley, CA, the Oakland, CA law
> firm Lewis, Feinbe! rg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson P.C., and the
> Boston, MA law firm Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C.
>
> The Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund and the
> NAD ask deaf and hard of hearing individuals who want to
> learn more about the lawsuit to visit:
> http://www.dredf.org/captioning, call the toll-free number
> 1-800-348-4232 (V), or email Shane Feldman at
> netflixlawsuit at nad.org or Charlotte Lanvers at clanvers at dredf.org.
>
> http://www.nad.org/news/2012/6/landmark-precedent-nad-vs-netflix
>
>
>
>
> __,_._,___
>
> Join us on Facebook: facebook.com/ADAExpertise. Please visit
> www.ADAadvocacyBlog.org
>
> ADA Expertise is owned and operated by Marc Dubin, Esq.
> Opinions posted are posted in a private capacity, and are not
> to be construed to be the opinions of the CIL, its employees,
> Board, or volunteers.
> ADAExpertise | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> info for nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/brianrmi
> ller88%40gmail.com