In a long-awaited opinion in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a divided Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded what had been a ground-breaking Florida district court.
In a recent landmark ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that websites are not places of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the Americans with.
11th Circ: Gil v Winn-Dixie on Website Accessibility natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Friday, April 9, 2021
On April 7, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its long-awaited opinion in
Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., reversing a trial court’s decision against Winn-Dixie, holding that websites are not places of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that Winn-Dixie’s website does not violate 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Most significantly, the court created a major circuit split that may attract the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States, when the Eleventh Circuit rejected the “nexus” standard of liability accepted by several other circuits, including the Third and Ninth Circuits, and the plaintiff-friendly, virtual “places of public accommodation” standard accepted in the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits. The opinion is sorely needed good news for retailers facing a deluge of website accessibility lawsuits. Whether it is cause for celebration remains to be se
Friday, April 9, 2021
A website is not a “place of public accommodation” and an inaccessible website is not necessarily equal to the denial of goods or services, a federal appeals court has held in a groundbreaking decision on disability discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021).
While the Eleventh Circuit joins several other circuits in holding a website is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III, it went further in expressly holding that, under the facts of the case, an inaccessible website is not necessarily tantamount to the denial of goods or services because the website lacked an auxiliary aid that would enable the website to be read aloud by screen-reader technology.