Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019)

Plain English Summary

Domino's Pizza v. Robles is arguably the most important web accessibility court decision to date. Guillermo Robles, a blind man who uses a screen reader, sued Domino's Pizza because he was unable to order food through the company's website and mobile app despite multiple attempts. The website and app lacked the accessibility features needed for screen reader compatibility, making it impossible for him to customize and order a pizza -- something any sighted user could do easily.

Domino's argued that because the DOJ had not issued specific regulations for website accessibility under ADA Title III, companies should not be held to an unspecified standard, and that doing so would violate due process. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument decisively, holding that the ADA applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, including websites and mobile applications that have a nexus to a physical store.

When Domino's petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, the Court declined -- a move widely interpreted as allowing the Ninth Circuit's ruling to stand and signaling that the Supreme Court did not see a reason to intervene. This decision sent shockwaves through the business community and is widely credited with accelerating the growth of web accessibility lawsuits and corporate accessibility programs.

Who This Applies To

Direct Binding Authority

The Ninth Circuit's decision is binding law in:

• Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands

Persuasive Authority Nationwide

While the ruling is only binding in the Ninth Circuit, it has been cited and followed by courts across the country:

• District courts in other circuits frequently reference the decision
• The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari is seen as tacit approval of the reasoning
• The case has influenced settlements, DOJ enforcement, and corporate policy nationwide

Who Is Affected

• Any business with physical locations and a website or app is subject to the ruling's logic that ADA Title III extends to digital services connected to physical places of public accommodation
• Restaurants, retailers, hotels, entertainment venues, healthcare providers, banks -- any Title III entity with digital ordering, reservations, or service platforms
• Technology companies that build websites and apps for businesses with physical locations
• Accessibility overlay vendors who claim their products provide ADA compliance (the Robles case predated the overlay debate but set the stage for it)

Key Requirements

The Court's Core Holdings

1. The ADA Applies to Websites and Apps The court held that ADA Title III requires places of public accommodation to provide "full and equal enjoyment" of their goods and services, and this requirement extends to websites and mobile applications that offer access to those goods and services.

2. No Specific DOJ Regulation Required Domino's argued that without specific DOJ regulations defining web accessibility standards, it was unfair to hold businesses liable. The court rejected this, stating:

• The ADA itself is the source of the obligation, not DOJ regulations
• The ADA's broad language encompasses web accessibility without needing additional rulemaking
• Businesses have had decades to make their websites accessible
• The DOJ's delay in issuing regulations does not excuse noncompliance

3. Due Process Is Not Violated The court held that applying the ADA to websites does not violate due process because:

• Businesses are on notice that the ADA applies to their services
• Courts can use WCAG as a benchmark without it being formally adopted by regulation
• Due process requires fair notice, and businesses have been on notice since the DOJ's early statements on web accessibility

4. The Nexus Requirement The court applied a "nexus" test: the ADA applies to a website or app when there is a connection between the digital platform and the services of a physical place of public accommodation. In Domino's case, the website and app were used to order food from physical restaurants, creating a clear nexus.

Practical Standards Referenced

While the court did not mandate a specific WCAG version, it noted that:

• WCAG 2.0 was referenced in the original lawsuit
• Courts can use WCAG as an appropriate benchmark for accessibility
• The specific standard to be applied would be determined at trial

Enforcement and Penalties

Procedural History

1. 2016: Robles filed suit in the Central District of California
2. 2017: The district court dismissed the case, agreeing with Domino's that the lack of DOJ regulations made enforcement premature
3. January 15, 2019: The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial
4. October 7, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court denied Domino's petition for certiorari
5. Post-2019: The case was remanded to the district court, where it eventually settled (terms confidential)

Impact on Enforcement Landscape

The Robles decision transformed the enforcement landscape:

• Surge in lawsuits: ADA web accessibility lawsuits increased dramatically after the ruling, with annual filings exceeding 4,000 in subsequent years
• Settlement leverage: Plaintiffs gained significant leverage in settlement negotiations, as businesses could no longer rely on the "no regulations" defense
• Corporate response: Major corporations accelerated their web accessibility programs
• Insurance implications: Cyber and general liability insurance policies began addressing web accessibility claims

Remedies in Web Accessibility Cases (Generally)

Based on the framework established by this case and similar rulings:

• Injunctive relief: Courts order businesses to make their websites and apps accessible
• WCAG compliance timelines: Settlement agreements typically require WCAG 2.1 AA conformance within 12-24 months
• Ongoing monitoring: Businesses are often required to conduct regular audits
• Attorneys' fees: Prevailing plaintiffs recover reasonable attorneys' fees
• State law damages: When paired with state law claims (e.g., Unruh Act in California), monetary damages are available

Practical Implications

For Businesses

• The "no regulations" defense is dead. After Robles, businesses cannot argue that the absence of specific web accessibility regulations excuses them from making their digital platforms accessible.
• If you have physical locations and a website, the ADA applies to your website. This is settled law in the Ninth Circuit and strongly persuasive elsewhere.
• WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the practical standard. While the court did not mandate a specific version, settlement agreements and subsequent rulings consistently reference WCAG 2.1 AA.
• Mobile apps are covered. The ruling explicitly addressed Domino's mobile app, confirming that native applications are subject to the same accessibility requirements as websites.
• Proactive compliance is far less expensive than litigation. The cost of defending a web accessibility lawsuit -- even one that settles quickly -- typically exceeds the cost of making a website accessible in the first place.

For the Legal Community

• The nexus test is the Ninth Circuit standard. A website or app must have a connection to a physical place of public accommodation. This is a narrower standard than some other circuits, which have applied the ADA to purely online businesses.
• The circuit split continues. Different circuits have different approaches to web accessibility under Title III. The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits require a nexus to a physical location; the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits have been more expansive.
• The Supreme Court may eventually take a case. The denial of certiorari in Robles was not a ruling on the merits. A future case with a sharper circuit split may prompt the Court to weigh in.

For Web Developers and Designers

• Accessibility is a legal requirement, not a nice-to-have. The Robles case made this unmistakably clear for any business with physical locations.
• Build accessibility into every project. Clients need to understand that an inaccessible website creates legal liability.
• Test with real assistive technology. Robles could not use a screen reader with Domino's site. Testing with screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver) is essential.
• Document your accessibility work. If a client faces a lawsuit, documentation of accessibility efforts can demonstrate good faith.

For People with Disabilities

• This ruling affirmed your right to use websites and apps equally. The Ninth Circuit made clear that the ADA protects your ability to access digital services.
• You can bring ADA claims for inaccessible websites. If a business's website or app is not accessible, you may have a valid ADA Title III claim.
• Document barriers specifically. Screenshots, screen recordings, and detailed descriptions of what you attempted and what failed are valuable evidence.

Key Dates and Deadlines

| Date | Event | |------|-------| | September 2016 | Robles files suit against Domino's Pizza | | March 20, 2017 | District court dismisses the case | | January 15, 2019 | Ninth Circuit reverses dismissal, holds ADA applies to websites | | July 2019 | Domino's petitions the Supreme Court for certiorari | | October 7, 2019 | Supreme Court denies certiorari | | Post-2019 | Case remanded and eventually settled |

---

This content is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney. Laws and regulations are subject to change, and this information may not reflect the most current legal developments.