California ADA Website Accessibility Compliance Rules
Whether private websites and software programs must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) can depend on jurisdiction and facts. For people with disabilities evaluating an accessibility issue, two questions often control whether there may be an actionable ADA violation:
- (1) Is the private website or software program covered under the ADA (Title III)?
- (2) If covered, does the website provide the minimum level of accommodation?
Although the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) are not universally mandated as a statute, WCAG is widely used to evaluate whether a website reasonably accommodates users with disabilities.
If a website is not covered under the ADA, and/or it provides sufficient accommodation under accessibility standards, there may be no actionable claim.
1) Is the Website Covered Under the ADA?
Title III and “Places of Public Accommodation”
Private websites and software programs are evaluated under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination in the “services … of any place of public accommodation.”[1]
The ADA’s implementing regulations define “public accommodation” as a facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce and that falls within enumerated categories (e.g., lodging, restaurants, entertainment venues, retail).[2] The ADA does not expressly list websites and software programs as “places of public accommodation,” which is why courts have taken different approaches.
California’s “Nexus” Approach (9th Circuit Trend)
Many California state and federal courts apply a stricter “nexus” approach, treating a website or app as covered only when it has a sufficient connection to a company’s brick-and-mortar location.[3][4]
Under this approach, coverage is more likely when an inaccessible website or app impedes access to goods or services at a physical store. For example, courts have found coverage where a website meaningfully affects access to the services of a physical retailer.[5]
By contrast, some online-only platforms have been found not covered under a strict nexus analysis because they are not tied to a physical place.[6]
More Inclusive Approach in Other Jurisdictions
Some jurisdictions (including the First Circuit and some district courts in the Second and Fourth Circuits) apply a more inclusive interpretation, treating certain websites and software programs as places of public accommodation if they fit within a Title III category (e.g., “service establishments”).[7]
These courts have reasoned that excluding online services could undermine the ADA’s purpose of ensuring equal access to goods and services offered to the public.[8] Under this approach, online-only offerings may be treated as covered public accommodations in more scenarios.[9]
DOJ Support, Guidance, and Title II Rule
Despite the split in judicial approaches, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has long taken the position that websites and software programs should comply with the ADA, including through enforcement actions and settlements that reference WCAG technical standards.[10][11]
On March 18, 2022, the DOJ published Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA, stating that ADA requirements apply to goods and services offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.
On April 24, 2024, the DOJ issued a Final Rule revising Title II (state and local governments), establishing technical standards for web content and mobile apps used by government entities.[12]
Whether and when DOJ may revise Title III to expressly enumerate websites/software programs as places of public accommodation is uncertain.
2) Does the Website Provide the Minimum Level of Accommodation?
WCAG Technical Standards: The POUR Framework
WCAG provides a widely used set of accessibility principles and success criteria. WCAG organizes accessibility around four core principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust (“POUR”).[13]
- Perceivable: Content can be understood through alternative senses (e.g., captions for audio, descriptions for video).
- Operable: Users can navigate and operate all functionality (e.g., keyboard access, enough time to read).
- Understandable: Users can understand the content and how to use the site (e.g., labeled inputs, consistent navigation).
- Robust: Content works with a wide range of assistive technologies and user agents.
WCAG also includes practical examples of accessibility accommodations, including:[14]
- Meaningful ALT text for images so screen readers can convey content.
- Resizable text without breaking page layout.
- Forms that do not require completion under unreasonable time limits (or allow extended time).
- Consistent repeated components (navigation, headers, footers, sidebars) across pages.
- Full keyboard navigation (e.g., “tab” key progression).
- Proper heading structure so screen reader users can navigate efficiently.
Even if a website is covered under the ADA, case law can be limited on what is “accessible enough” in a given context.[15]
What Is an Actionable Website Accessibility Violation?
Step 1: Determine whether the website is covered
In California, websites and apps tied to access to a physical location are more likely to be covered under the nexus approach. Online-only services may be less likely to be covered in Ninth Circuit jurisdictions, while other jurisdictions may apply a broader rule that captures online-only businesses.
Step 2: Evaluate whether the site provides adequate accommodation
Even if covered, a business may avoid liability if it provides users with disabilities a minimum level of accommodation. There is no one-size-fits-all test. For example, a user may need to enlarge text to use a website, yet still have meaningful access to the site’s content and functionality.
If you have questions about coverage, WCAG conformance, or potential claims, consult an attorney. Separately, businesses often reduce litigation risk by responding proactively to accessibility issues and accommodation requests.
Sources
- [1] 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
- [2] 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
- [3] See National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2006) 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 952 (citing Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (9th Cir. 2000) 198 F.3d 1104, 1115); see also Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1047.
- [4] Id.
- [5] See National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2006) 452 F.Supp.2d 946; see also Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 898.
- [6] See Young v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2011) 790 F.Supp.2d 1110; see also Cullen v. Netflix, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 880 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1024; see also Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1026, review denied (Nov. 9, 2022).
- [7] See Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc. (1st Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 12.
- [8] National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (D. Mass. 2012) 869 F.Supp.2d 196, 200.
- [9] See National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (D. Mass. 2012) 869 F.Supp.2d 196, 201; see also National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc. (D. Vt. 2015) 97 F.Supp.3d 565, 576; see also Mejico v. Alba Web Designs, LLC (W.D. Va. 2021) 515 F.Supp.3d 424, 435; see also Panarra v. HTC Corporation (W.D.N.Y. 2022) 598 F.Supp.3d 73, 80.
- [10] See Statement of Int. of the U.S. in Opposition to Def.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at 9, National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (D. Mass. 2012) 869 F.Supp.2d 196; see also Compl. in Intervention at 2, National Federation of the Blind v. HRB Digital LLC (No. 39-10799).
- [11] See Settlement Agreement between the U.S. & Ahold U.S.A., Inc. & Peapod, LLC (Nov. 17, 2014) https://archive.ada.gov/peapod_sa.htm; see also Settlement Agreement between the U.S. & Rite Aid Corp. (Nov. 1, 2021) https://www.ada.gov/rite_aid_sa.pdf.
- [12] See 89 F.R. § 31320. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state.
- [13] WCAG 101: Understanding the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (January 12, 202) https://wcag.com/resource/what-is-wcag/.
- [14] Id.
- [15] See Thurston v. Midvale Corp. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 634.