“Winn Dixie was sued for website violations, and it’s the only case that I know of that’s gone to trial. They lost,” said attorney Dan Anderson of Anderson Law Group in Clearwater.

Anderson said he sees more small business owners being sued by law firms for not having websites that are friendly for the hearing or visually impaired.

“They just don’t have the kind of money that is necessary to respond to the lawsuit and defend it, so really they’re forced to settle. And in the process of settling, they’re forced to pay many thousands of dollars,” said Anderson.

It could potentially be putting them out of business. The issue is that websites are not a part of ADA law, but there are laws against communication barriers.

“I just want to try to help these businesses and make them aware that this is an issue,” said web developer Geoff Fahey, owner of Pro Digital Strategies.

Fahey checks coding to bring businesses’ websites into compliance, and he suggests business owners check out the free Website Accessibility Evaluation or WAVE tool to see what needs to be changed on their website to bring the errors to zero.

Then, he said there are several steps to complete.

“You have to go into the back end and edit all this [coding] information, and you have to follow these extensive audits that are usually conducted by organizations or nonprofits that have visually impaired individual,” said Fahey.

He added that he works with Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind, Lighthouse Central Florida and the National Federation of the Blind to audit websites.

Attorneys said small business owners need a firm set of rules to follow to help disabled people who may visit their website. And Fahey said a grace period would be better than getting slapped with a lawsuit.

“What I think should happen is a law firm or another organization comes to these businesses and says Hey, please fix this. We have customers that cannot access your website. Please take 60 days, three months, fix it.’ Here are the issues. Here are the list of approved vendors and web developers that know how to do it rather than going the route of suing them and immediately demanding money,” Fahey added.

There are web accessibility standards the courts do recognize now and businesses follow those for their websites.

Code for custom-built websites will be easier to edit, but Fahrey said business owners that use certain web platforms may not have access to the back end of their website to make necessary changes.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/owners-of-non-ada-compliant-websites-could-face-lawsuits

The post Owners of non-ADA compliant websites could face lawsuits appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

In January he got sued.

And his business wasn’t the only one.

According to the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, last fall, 26 wineries from Long Island and the Hudson Valley were named in a class action lawsuit and another 12, including Fox Run Vineyards, in January for “ … failure to design, construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible and independently usable by (Plaintiff) and other visually impaired people.”

At issue is Title III of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which applies to private businesses. The intent of the Act, signed into law by George Bush in 1990, is to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access, opportunity, participation, independence and economic self-sufficiency as individuals without disabilities. (https://ag.ny.gov/civil-rights/disability-rights).

When first enacted, the law was primarily directed at businesses in buildings that lacked adequate provisions for people with physical handicaps who might be unable to access steps or navigate narrow corridors and doorways.

But with the rise of the Internet in the 21st century and society’s reliance on it to conduct nearly all aspects of contemporary commerce, Title III of the ADA has been extended to website development as well.

There’s little controversy about the intent of the law and its basic premise. As Osborn puts it, “I want everyone to come to my winery and access my website. I want to achieve as much as I can. The problem is, there’s not much information available as to how to go about it. ”

The sticking point appears to be a lack of clarity from the federal government as to what exactly defines website accessibility for the visually impaired and what those businesses that have been found to be out of compliance need to do to fix it.

James Marshall Berry is Chief Strategy Officer with JMB Web Consulting, LLC based out of Sonoma County. He works with a number of winery clients who have serious concerns about the compliance issue and how address it.

Berry contends that since the Department of Justice (DOJ) has declined to be specific about issuing any official website compliance guidelines, small businesses are scrambling to define their own best practices and the actual decisions about compliance are coming down from individual courtrooms where the cases are being litigated.

“We all would like a standard of measure that tells us is it or isn’t it compliant,” Berry asserts. “But if it’s up to a judge and jury to decide what’s good enough – that has sweeping ramifications.”

Berry says that many wineries and small businesses are turning to website accessibility practices that were developed in 1999 by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international community where “member organizations, a full time staff and the public work together to develop web standards.” (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/).

Under the W3C, a workgroup came up with an initial list of 14 standards and checkpoints, known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) that could be followed in order to make the Internet more accessible to people with disabilities.

In 2008, those guidelines were updated (WCAG 2.0) to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, and focused more on “principle-centered guidelines,” rather than the “technique-centered guidelines,” which made up the bulk of the earlier work. (https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/).

However, as Berry points out, “It can be as arbitrary as contrasting colors on a logo, or one color of orange being brighter than another … at the end of the day, it’s going to fall to CMS (Content Management System) to become compliant. And, were winery websites originally built that way? Not really. Do they have the money to fashion their websites to facilitate compliance? Probably not, but it will likely be cheaper than a lawsuit.”

Richard J. Idell is an attorney with Dickenson, Peatman and Fogarty, a law firm in Napa CA, with extensive experience representing wine industry concerns. He is also an entertainment lawyer, specializing in live performances and has significant experience with ADA issues.

Idell agrees that it can be frustrating for wineries and other small businesses to be subject to lawsuits without clear Justice Department guidelines. But, as he points out, “the fact that there are not clear guidelines on the issue doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fix it.”

Idell references the WCAG 2.1 standards for website development guidance that suggest, among other things, installing software with alternative text that contains a code that describes images on a page, or screen reading software that does allow the visually impaired to read online content.

He notes that the risk of damage awards and attorney’s fees is significant and a good reason to address the problem, even without clarity from the Justice Department.

“This will all get sorted out eventually,” Idell predicts, because, as he says, the litigation will result in decisions where the courts say what is covered in the law and not. “When the law was passed, Congress saw the best way to get a law implemented is have attorneys bring cases for private litigants. That is why you have private individuals filing suit.”

For their part, winery owners like Scott Osborn are doing their best to cope with an ever-shifting legal and technical landscape. Under his direction, Fox Run Vineyards has completely rebuilt its website, with assistance from the Center for Disability Rights in Rochester New York.

Fox Run Vineyards website accessibility menu

Osborn hired User 1st, a company specializing in website accessibility. At the top left on the Fox Run Vineyards homepage, there is now an Accessibility tab. When activated, users may choose among several options to address accessibility needs, including activating a screen reader, navigating by keyboard, changing color contrast, making a grayscale and stop moving elements.

“It took us three to four months to get this thing done and done correctly,” Osborn reports. “People who don’t have (disability) issues – we don’t think about it. And we should. We just need a way to think about it without having a lawsuit.”

Sam Filler, the Executive Director of the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, could not agree more.

“No one is intentionally trying to limit access,” Filler states. “The problem is with the rules not being clear. Even if you’ve followed best practices and WCAG 2.0, it doesn’t absolve you from a lawsuit. You could be 98 percent there, but one photo that wasn’t accessible can bring up a complaint.”

“Bigger companies have the resources to settle (lawsuits),” Filler continues. “For smaller wineries a settlement and the money to fix a website can mean their yearly marketing budget.

“There needs to be breathing room so wineries can become compliant. Our industry is totally committed to providing appropriate disability access. If it’s not there, our winery owners are committed to making the appropriate improvement.”

https://wineindustryadvisor.com/2019/06/03/wineries-struggle-ada-website-compliance-lawsuits

The post Wineries Struggle with ADA Website Compliance in Wake of New York Class Action Lawsuits appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

According to a recent article published in the New York Law Journal, a committee of state legislators in New York plan to develop a legal standard for website accessibility, in the wake of years of regulatory inactivity by the federal government.

As we have previously written about, various state and municipal jurisdictions have laws on the books requiring that government agencies and contractors provide accessible websites. New York, however, would be the first state in the country to directly hold business websites to an accessibility standard.

Ironically, this legislative effort appears, from the NYLJ article at least, to be motivated by a concern over the surge of website accessibility filings and their impact on businesses.

A State Website Accessibility Standard To Reign In Federal Lawsuits?

The NYLJ article cites statistics published on our blog that ADA plaintiffs filed an astounding 1,564 website accessibility lawsuits in New York federal courts in 2018, which amounted to more than two-thirds of all federal website cases filed throughout the country last year.

The representative leading this initiative, State Sen. Diane Savino, referred to plaintiffs-side attorneys commencing these lawsuits as “ambulance-chaser[s]” who are “exploiting loopholes in the law” to look for quick settlements, and described the cases as having the potential to “bankrupt a small business.”

Senator Savino attributed the surge in website accessibility filings to “a real lack of regulation from the federal level down to the states.” Accordingly, the Internet and Technology Committee that she chairs will “try to develop a set of standards [for website accessibility] recognizing . . . that there are not four walls of the internet.”

It is laudable that Senator Savino and her Committee are attempting to tackle the surge in “surf by” ADA lawsuits. That said, we are not sure how developing a legal standard for business websites at the state level will mitigate the surge in federal lawsuits.

In our experience, most website accessibility lawsuits in New York are filed in federal court. Since Title III of the ADA does not provide for damages, New York plaintiffs typically add “tag-along” claims under state (and municipal) law for damages. However, as demonstrated from states’ attempts to reign in physical barrier cases, no state law can affect the remedies and procedures available under the federal ADA.

Would Legislation Provide Relief To Businesses, Or Create More Uncertainty?

Website accessibility lawsuits are usually based on the ADA’s general mandate that public accommodations provide people with disabilities equal access to their goods, services, and accommodations, specifically through auxiliary aids and services to ensure that their communication with individuals with disabilities is “effective.”

These regulations expressly state that a business can choose which auxiliary aid or service to provide, however, as long as the method is effective, free of charge, and safeguards the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability. Requiring New York businesses to conform their websites to a set of accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 or 2.1, without more, would reduce the flexibility that businesses currently have in how they provide “effective communication” as to the content and services available on websites and other digital assets.

In addition, federal courts are addressing website accessibility issues on a case-by-case basis. A body of case law is thus developing in this area, albeit with distinctions across jurisdictions. A state law standard that is inconsistent with these rulings may add to the confusion for businesses.

An Opportunity For Governmental Direction?

In her remarks, Senator Savino described states as “the incubators of ideas,” which is particularly opportune in the area of website accessibility, where federal regulators “have dragged their feet.” The prospect of legislation in this area presents, in our view, an opportunity for a governmental body to provide reasoned and balanced direction on this issue, which has been lacking at the federal level.

Nevertheless, the devil is in the details. The task of regulating this area effectively and fairly will involve the consideration of a number of issues. For example:

A standard that accounts for user experience. We know that compliance with every WCAG 2.1 AA requirement is challenging and requires extensive resources and expertise that most businesses do not have. Should the legislation prioritize frequent user journeys (g., browsing and searching for products, placing orders, and searching for brick and mortar business locations) over less traveled areas of a website?
Legacy content. Should any technical standard apply only to new content or new websites? Should it apply only to existing content that has been updated or modified within a specified period of time?
Safe harbor. Businesses modify their digital properties much more frequently than their physical, “brick and mortar” spaces. Updates and new content can inadvertently impact the accessibility of a website or other digital asset. Website “bugs” do not equate to intentional discrimination. Regulations should contain a safe harbor or cure period for accessibility issues introduced by an update or change to a website or digital asset.
An implementation period. Businesses must be given sufficient time to comply with the standard, and should be afforded a “safe harbor” from private claims during this period. There are simply not enough accessibility experts out there to assist businesses to make their websites accessible. Small businesses in particular must have a longer time period for compliance.
Third party website developers. Most businesses know little about website development and hire third party vendors to create and/or update their websites. From our experience, most of these third party vendors do not have the expertise to create and maintain accessible websites and other digital assets. Any legislation must recognize and address the difficult position that businesses are in because they are the ones in the lawsuit crosshairs, not the website developers.
Third party content. Many businesses have embedded third party content (g., maps) on their websites, over which they frequently have little or no means to change (other than removing the content entirely). Legislation over the accessibility of business websites should recognize these practical limitations on accessibility efforts.
Alternative access for complex content. Detailed charts and graphics with embedded text, and other complex content, can present challenges for screen reader users. These features can be very burdensome and expensive for businesses to address. Should legislation exempt complex content, or permit businesses to provide an alternative means of providing the information?
Small business considerations. Any legislation must acknowledge that small businesses generally cannot afford to hire expensive accessibility consultants and have little leverage to make their website development vendors conform their websites to accessibility guidelines. Strict adherence to these criteria, as Senator Savino alluded to in the NYLJ article, could bankrupt many small businesses.
Future technology. One of the challenges of regulating this area is the fast-paced nature of technological change. Any legislation needs to promote, rather than discourage, businesses in exploring new technologies that could reduce the costs of compliance and provide enhanced access to digital content for individuals with disabilities.
It is positive that elected leaders are taking note that the litigation environment over the accessibility of websites is becoming increasingly untenable for businesses. Should new legislation limit damages for website access violations, or require some procedure or process before a litigant can file a claim?
A litigant can visit the websites of businesses much faster than he or she can visit (and encounter barriers to access) at “brick and mortar” locations. Should a few minutes of internet browsing give rise to dozens of class action lawsuits over accessibility? Accordingly, should the law provide for enhanced standing requirements in website accessibility cases to ensure that plaintiffs have a legitimate stake in the case? What can be done to reign in litigants who file lawsuits resulting in quick settlements en masse?
There are many issues for the Committee to consider, and it is critical to include practitioners who are “on the ground” working through these issues to develop sensible legislation that will advance the dual goals of accessibility and reducing the crushing number of lawsuits.

https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2019/05/NY-Lawmakers-Plan-to-Address-Surge-in-ADA-Website-Accessibility-Suits-_-Law.com_.pdf

The post New York Lawmakers Plan To Address Website Accessibility appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

Representative Norm Thurston played the report which showed how more than 100 Utah businesses have been sued over arguably-minor violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The businesses were then strong-armed into paying settlements to make the lawsuits go away, the business owners claimed in the report.

“Why would I have to pay $3000 to just let me know that this needs to be fixed,” Thurston testified to the committee. “You can do that in another way.”

Thurston has been working to try and curb drive by lawsuits, specifically requiring a business be given a chance to fix an ADA issue before being slapped with a suit.

“A business that has a violation deserves to be notified that they have a violation and then they should be expected to fix it,” he said. “The first thing most of these businesses see is a notice that they’ve been named in a federal lawsuit which is not what any small business owner wants to see.”

The trouble is Utah can’t pass a law that conflicts with federal law, like the ADA, Thurston acknowledges.

Thurston thinks he has a solution. He hopes to work with the Utah State Courts and the Utah State Bar to declare drive-by lawsuits unethical. Thurston testified that he has approached each and that each was receptive to the idea.

Wednesday’s meeting was largely to put lawmakers on notice that Rep. Thurston is working on the issue. No final decisions were made.

https://kutv.com/news/get-gephardt/utah-lawmaker-has-a-plan-to-fight-drive-by-ada-lawsuits

The post Utah lawmaker has a plan to fight ‘Drive By’ ADA lawsuits appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

In Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, the plaintiff, who is blind, brought suit against Domino’s for failing to “design, construct, maintain, and operate its [website and app] to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Mr. Robles and other blind or visually-impaired people,” in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff, who utilized screen-reading software that vocalized information on websites, tried unsuccessfully on at least two occasions to order a customized pizza from a Domino’s Pizza location.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Domino’s. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered 1) whether the ADA applies to websites and apps, 2) due process implications of applying the ADA to websites, and 3) jurisdictional concerns.

Read more..

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/adapt-your-website-key-takeaways-domino-s-website-litigation

The post Key Takeaways from the Domino’s ADA Supreme Court Website Litigation appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

Many web users find themselves fighting with poor web designs which make navigation difficult. Often they are sites done by people who care more about graphic impact than usability.

Imagine what challenges such sites pose to blind users.

Blind people have long been able to use the web by using special browsers called screen readers. Once there was a limited number of them available and they could be expensive. Now several free ones are available, including some which operate inside a standard browser such as Google’s Chrome.

If you have ever looked at the underlying code for web pages, you have seen how complex web page coding can be. If done poorly, the web pages can make the job screen readers have more difficult or even impossible.

As long as screen readers have existed, there have been recommendations about how to make it easier for them. Such changes rarely affect the visual look of a web page — instead, they require additional code which provides the readers with greater information.

For example, all graphics needs to have an “alt” text indicated, which describes what is depicted in the graphic, so the screen reader can read that.

When it comes to videos, the issue is more complex. Of course a blind person can listen to a video successfully, but some description of the video needs to be added for them. For those who are deaf, it’s recommended that videos include sign language interpretation.

Government agencies and contractors are required to comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which specifies standards for accessibility which must be met. I’ve participated in online seminars organized by state agencies which they want to post on their web sites later. But they have to send them out to have the sign language interpretation done first.

Those rules don’t apply to private businesses unless they have government contracts.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed in 1990, requires that businesses make reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities, something which often means installing wheelchair ramps and related items. At the time the law was signed, the World Wide Web didn’t even exist. But it is being used by some lawyers to extract payments from businesses with web sites which the lawsuits claim are not accessible. Some lawsuits are resolved with a pledge by the site owner to fix the problems.

The difficulty is that there is no accepted standard for web sites to meet. So it’s nearly impossible for businesses to defend themselves against such lawsuits.

The World Wide Web Consortium, perhaps better known as W3C, works to standardize web programming. It has a standard called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The guidelines provide detailed recommendations on how to make sure web sites are accessible to those with disabilities. They have changed and been expanded over time to account for new web technologies.

In 2010, the U.S. Justice Department began to draft website regulations to set a standard which businesses could measure their web sites against. In December of 2017 the Trump administration stopped the process as part of the administration’s effort to reduce federal regulation.

Some members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have argued that the suspension of the effort actually is anti-business as it puts more burden on businesses that would benefit from knowing exactly what was expected of them. They have urged the Justice Department to establish a standard.

For those of you who do web sites, there are things you can do to make your site more accessible and to check the results.

More information on the W3C guidelines are available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/

I found many validators that you can use to check your site against the W3C guidelines, including free ones. The links to the validators tend to be very long and would be difficult to type. So if you want to try a few, go to www.toombs.info/fltimes/accessible.htm and you will find links there.

It’s best to run more than one validator and examine the results to see what is the most important to fix. The validators will give you differing results and they also vary by how much assistance they offer on methods to fix the problems they do find.

Many of the fixes are simple and can be done even if you use a program such as WordPress to do your site.

https://www.fltimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/web-sites-need-to-be-more-accessible/article_da9dadad-0976-5702-be3f-545e7c124f49.html

The post Web sites need to be more accessible appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

But businesses say they’re being blindsided by lawsuits for an issue many say they didn’t know they had. Their websites don’t work with screen readers used by the blind.

We asked Maryetta Grabowski, who is blind, to show us how her screen reader reads website information aloud to her, enabling her to book rides, get news and shop online.

After a search, the screen reader announces a product she’s looking for, “Vitamin B complex, made in the USA.”

If a website is not formatted to work with a screen reader, a blind person can’t use the site. Grabowski says she usually just lets the company know.

“The more we let them know it’s not accessible, it’s to our benefit,” she said.

But some other blind people across the country, and their attorneys, have filed lawsuits. Last year, 2,285 lawsuits were filed nationwide, according to the UsableNet research team, against banks, hotels, stores and restaurants. The lawsuits are based on a 2017 court ruling that websites fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“Once that case came out, the floodgates opened,” said Laura Windsor, an attorney with Williams Mullen who represents businesses being sued over their websites.

But many of the businesses say they didn’t know they weren’t in compliance. And some even feel it’s a shakedown for settlements, which often range from $15,000 to $25,000.

“There are some law firms that genuinely want to do the right thing for disabled individuals,” Windsor said. “Now that said, in every profession, there are always the bad seeds.”

Many of the businesses that have been sued in Virginia are credit unions and small banks.

Lewis Wood, VP of Public Relations and Communications with the Virginia Credit Union League, told us, “I think to some degree they feel they’ve been victimized because it has been an out of state law firm that has targeted our credit unions and community banks.”

Wood says they feel they’re being victimized because the majority of these website lawsuits were filed by one blind man, Keith Carroll, and his attorneys. Other states have seen similar, multiple filings, also by one blind plaintiff residing in that state and their attorneys.

Attorney Scott Ferrell with Pacific Trial Attorneys represents Carroll in his lawsuits. He sent us a written statement responding to the businesses’ concerns.

“Seeking justice for the least among us from those in power is never popular – as the legacies of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy attest. Attack us if you must, but in this battle the disabled community is on the right side of history.”

So why don’t businesses just make their sites compatible with screen readers? Business operators say the Department of Justice has not issued the legal, technical standards websites should meet. Without that standard, they feel vulnerable to more lawsuits.

“We respect the disabled community, we believe they should have access. It’s just a matter of knowing the rules with which to comply,” said David Miles, Senior Vice President of the Virginia Credit Union League.

“There’s an international standard on web content accessibility guidelines but there have been several versions of that: 1.0, 2.0, 2.0 double A,” Miles explained.

However, advocates for people with disabilities say there are common standards.

Steven Traubert, Litigation Director with the disAbility Law Center of Virginia, tells us, “We know there are initiatives, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, that most businesses utilize in their web development and has essentially become the industry standard.”

This year, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill requiring a plaintiff to provide four months written notice before suing a financial institution regarding its website accessibility. Gov. Ralph Northam vetoed the bill last week, saying it “creates arbitrary delays in the administration of justice for individuals with disabilities” and “cannot override the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.”

“This has been the law already for 29 years,” Traubert said. “So when we hear from folks who might bring up we haven’t had time, the question becomes what have you been doing with the last 29 years?”

Now, businesses say they fear more lawsuits. But some visually impaired people fear they’re being left in the dark.

In the meantime, attorneys say they advise businesses to at least make their websites compatible with the most common screen reading standards in their industry to help protect themselves from lawsuits and to serve the blind community.

https://www.nbc12.com/2019/05/08/businesses-feel-victimized-by-lawsuits-over-online-accessibility-blind/

The post Businesses feel victimized by lawsuits over online accessibility for the blind appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

But businesses say they’re being blindsided by lawsuits for an issue many say they didn’t know they had. Their websites don’t work with screen readers used by the blind.

We asked Maryetta Grabowski, who is blind, to show us how her screen reader reads website information aloud to her, enabling her to book rides, get news and shop online.

After a search, the screen reader announces a product she’s looking for, “Vitamin B complex, made in the USA.”

If a website is not formatted to work with a screen reader, a blind person can’t use the site. Grabowski says she usually just lets the company know.

“The more we let them know it’s not accessible, it’s to our benefit,” she said.

But some other blind people across the country, and their attorneys, have filed lawsuits. Last year, 2,285 lawsuits were filed nationwide, according to the UsableNet research team, against banks, hotels, stores and restaurants. The lawsuits are based on a 2017 court ruling that websites fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“Once that case came out, the floodgates opened,” said Laura Windsor, an attorney with Williams Mullen who represents businesses being sued over their websites.

But many of the businesses say they didn’t know they weren’t in compliance. And some even feel it’s a shakedown for settlements, which often range from $15,000 to $25,000.

“There are some law firms that genuinely want to do the right thing for disabled individuals,” Windsor said. “Now that said, in every profession, there are always the bad seeds.”

Many of the businesses that have been sued in Virginia are credit unions and small banks.

Lewis Wood, VP of Public Relations and Communications with the Virginia Credit Union League, told us, “I think to some degree they feel they’ve been victimized because it has been an out of state law firm that has targeted our credit unions and community banks.”

Wood says they feel they’re being victimized because the majority of these website lawsuits were filed by one blind man, Keith Carroll, and his attorneys. Other states have seen similar, multiple filings, also by one blind plaintiff residing in that state and their attorneys.

Attorney Scott Ferrell with Pacific Trial Attorneys represents Carroll in his lawsuits. He sent us a written statement responding to the businesses’ concerns.

“Seeking justice for the least among us from those in power is never popular – as the legacies of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy attest. Attack us if you must, but in this battle the disabled community is on the right side of history.”

So why don’t businesses just make their sites compatible with screen readers? Business operators say the Department of Justice has not issued the legal, technical standards websites should meet. Without that standard, they feel vulnerable to more lawsuits.

“We respect the disabled community, we believe they should have access. It’s just a matter of knowing the rules with which to comply,” said David Miles, Senior Vice President of the Virginia Credit Union League.

“There’s an international standard on web content accessibility guidelines but there have been several versions of that: 1.0, 2.0, 2.0 double A,” Miles explained.

However, advocates for people with disabilities say there are common standards.

Steven Traubert, Litigation Director with the disAbility Law Center of Virginia, tells us, “We know there are initiatives, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, that most businesses utilize in their web development and has essentially become the industry standard.”

This year, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill requiring a plaintiff to provide four months written notice before suing a financial institution regarding its website accessibility. Gov. Ralph Northam vetoed the bill last week, saying it “creates arbitrary delays in the administration of justice for individuals with disabilities” and “cannot override the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.”

“This has been the law already for 29 years,” Traubert said. “So when we hear from folks who might bring up we haven’t had time, the question becomes what have you been doing with the last 29 years?”

Now, businesses say they fear more lawsuits. But some visually impaired people fear they’re being left in the dark.

In the meantime, attorneys say they advise businesses to at least make their websites compatible with the most common screen reading standards in their industry to help protect themselves from lawsuits and to serve the blind community.

https://www.nbc12.com/2019/05/08/businesses-feel-victimized-by-lawsuits-over-online-accessibility-blind/

The post Businesses feel victimized by lawsuits over online accessibility for the blind appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

The lawsuit says RIT, which has a school for the deaf, failed to “design, construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible” to the “blind or visually impaired.”

Nazareth College got the same claim by the same plaintiff, Jason Camacho. In fact, we found Camacho is suing 54 colleges and universities. 

https://www.whec.com/news/rit-naz-caught-in-explosion-of-ada-website-lawsuits/5340318/

The post Rochester Institute of Technology, Nazareth College caught in explosion of ADA website lawsuits appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.

Derrick Dennis of Queens, New York is legally blind and needs screen reading software to view a website’s content on his computer. He says the Pokémon Center website — which sells a variety of branded merchandise, including t-shirts, mugs, figures, and trading cards — contains numerous barriers that prevent him and other visually-impaired people from fully accessing its services and goods. It’s lacking alternative text (a.k.a. “alt-text”), which is typically embedded beneath images on a site and vocalized by screen readers. Without it, blind people can’t browse for products, find promotions and coupons, or receive captcha prompts. The site also allegedly contains empty or redundant hyperlinks that can confuse a screen reader.

https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/pokemon-center-company-ada-lawsuit-1203208010/

The post Visually Impaired Man Sues Pokémon Company Over Non-ADA Compliant Website appeared first on ADA Sentry Make your website ADA compliant today!.