Robles v. Domino's Pizza
The Supreme Court's 2019 denial of Domino's petition for certiorari stands as one of the most significant moments in web accessibility law, confirming that websites and mobile apps are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Landmark Decision
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Domino's appeal effectively confirmed that businesses with physical locations must make their websites accessible under ADA Title III. This case is frequently cited in accessibility lawsuits nationwide.
Case Overview
Case Information
- Full Citation
- Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019)
- Plaintiff
- Guillermo Robles
- Defendant
- Domino's Pizza, LLC
- Court
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Supreme Court denied certiorari
Key Issues
- Does ADA Title III apply to websites?
- Does due process require specific website accessibility regulations?
- What standard should be applied?
The Facts
Guillermo Robles, a blind man who uses screen reader software to access the internet, attempted to order pizza from Domino's website and mobile app in 2016. Despite using screen reading software, Robles could not:
- Order a customized pizza online
- Locate a nearby store
- Find current promotions
- Complete basic ordering functions
Robles filed suit under ADA Title III, alleging that Domino's website and mobile app were inaccessible to blind users and constituted a barrier to accessing Domino's services.
Case Timeline
Robles files complaint in federal district court
District court dismisses case, citing lack of DOJ regulations
Robles appeals to Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit reverses district court, ruling ADA applies to websites
Domino's files petition for certiorari with Supreme Court
Supreme Court denies certiorari (refuses to hear case)
Case settles; Domino's commits to accessibility improvements
The Ninth Circuit's Reasoning
Key Holdings
1. Websites are Covered by ADA
The court held that ADA Title III's prohibition on discrimination applies to services of a place of public accommodation, not just the physical space. Since Domino's website and app facilitate access to Domino's restaurants (physical public accommodations), they must be accessible.
2. No Specific Regulations Required
Domino's argued that without specific DOJ website accessibility regulations, imposing liability violated due process. The court rejected this, holding that the ADA's broad prohibition on discrimination provided sufficient notice. Specific regulations are not required.
3. WCAG as a Standard
While not mandating WCAG compliance specifically, the court noted that WCAG 2.0 could serve as an appropriate standard and that Domino's was aware of WCAG before the lawsuit.
"The alleged inaccessibility of Domino's website and app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises—which are places of public accommodation."
Domino's Arguments (Rejected)
Domino's Claimed:
- ADA only covers physical locations
- No DOJ regulations exist for websites
- Imposing liability violates due process
- WCAG is not a legal standard
- Accessibility is technically challenging
Court Rejected Because:
- ADA covers "services" of public accommodations
- Specific regulations not required for civil rights laws
- ADA's general prohibition provides notice
- WCAG provides reasonable guidance
- Technical difficulty doesn't excuse discrimination
Impact and Significance
Legal Precedent
- Binding in Ninth Circuit: The decision is binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit (covering AZ, CA, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, AK, HI, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands)
- Persuasive Nationwide: The decision is cited in cases across the country as persuasive authority
- Supreme Court Signal: The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case suggests agreement with the Ninth Circuit's reasoning
Impact on Litigation
- Accessibility lawsuits increased significantly after the decision
- Businesses became more proactive about accessibility
- WCAG gained broader recognition as the practical compliance standard
- Settlements typically now require WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance
Lessons for Businesses
- Conduct accessibility audits of websites and apps
- Remediate to WCAG 2.1 Level AA minimum
- Implement ongoing accessibility testing
- Train developers on accessibility
- Publish accessibility statement
- Provide accessible contact method
- That lack of regulations means no liability
- That online-only businesses are exempt
- That technical challenges excuse inaccessibility
- That overlay tools provide compliance
- That accessibility can wait
Related Cases
Case Summary
- Decision
- Websites must be accessible under ADA Title III
- Standard
- WCAG can serve as compliance benchmark
- Binding In
- Ninth Circuit (AZ, CA, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, AK, HI)
- Supreme Court
- Denied certiorari October 2019
Related Resources
Key Takeaway
Businesses cannot wait for specific regulations. The ADA applies to websites now, and WCAG provides a reasonable compliance framework.