Avoiding the Website Accessibility Shakedown by Toni Cannady
Website accessibility demands are on the rise, and mobile apps are next. While “a picture is worth a thousand words” to most, it is meaningless to someone who is blind. Similarly, other features provided on websites and mobile apps are useless to those with other disabilities absent builtin accessibility features. Nearly six years ago, the Department of Justice began the rule-making process for website accessibility provided by covered entities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Today, DOJ—the agency charged with enforcing ADA—continues to delay the issuance of Title III website accessibility regulations until 2018. But banks cannot wait until 2018. Demands for accessibility to websites are circulating now. This comes as no surprise. For years, plaintiffs’ firms have used the ADA to obtain large sums of money from companies, including banks. This trend began with physical barriers, then moved on to ATMs. Most recently, a growing number of plaintiffs’ firms have been sending demand letters to various companies, including banks, alleging that people with disabilities are denied access to online goods and services in violation of ADA. The letters seek an out-of-court settlement, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs. Since the beginning of 2015, more than 244 federal lawsuits have been filed throughout the country against companies of all sizes, including banks. Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP, a Pittsburgh-based firm, continues to lead this crusade to demand that banks and others comply with WCAG 2.0 AA. WCAG 2.0 AA is a technical standard published by the World Wide Web Consortium and one which DOJ apparently prefers—but has not yet
adopted. Many cases settle after receipt of the demand letter without suit being filed. However, in some cases where no settlement is reached, plaintiffs have proceeded to court. In such cases where the court case is proceeding, banks and other companies have typically quickly settled to avoid further litigation costs as attempts to dismiss the suit are often, if not always, denied. These demands for ADA compliance raise many questions for covered entities— specifically about the legal requirements under Title III for websites and mobile apps. Title III Requirements Title III of the ADA specifically requires public accommodations, including banks, to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication absent an undue burden or fundamental alteration to the goods and services. However, considering the resources of most financial institutions, it is unlikely that DOJ or a court would conclude that website accessibility modifications would cause undue burden to a bank. This obligation is a top priority at DOJ. In 2010, DOJ amended the definition of auxiliary aids and services to include “accessible electronic information technology (EIT).” Thus, banks are required to provide accessible EIT to ensure effective communication with individuals with visual, hearing, motor and cognitive disabilities. DOJ continues to affirm this analysis through its longstanding position that public accommodations have an existing duty to provide an accessible website, even in the absence of a legal standard. With that in mind, banks should begin to carefully assess their websites and mobile apps for accessibility deficiencies.
“
“Since the beginning of 2015, more than 244 federal lawsuits have been filed throughout the country against companies of all sizes, including banks.”
”
What’s the legal standard?
There is none, at least officially. However, all signs point to WCAG 2.0 AA for websites. WCAG 2.0 AA is the website accessibility standard incorporated into DOJ’s settlement agreements, used in its enforcement actions and considered in the most recent supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued by DOJ in April 2016. The standard seeks to ensure that people with disabilities can access online information by providing coding guidelines to assist website developers in crafting accessible websites.
Unlike websites, there is no universally accepted standard for mobile applications, and no indication from DOJ as to what an accessible mobile application entails. However, DOJ mentioned mobile apps when it intervened in the National Federation of the Blind’s lawsuit against H&R Block in 2013, noting that the tax preparation company’s mobile apps precluded individuals with disabilities from having equal access to H&R Block goods and services, an indication that mobile apps are on the agency’s enforcement radar. February 2017 | The Arkansas Banker
5
