Minnesota Lawsuit Reinforces ADA’s Web Accessibility Requirements

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to websites, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a number of major court decisions. But despite that well-established precedent, many businesses continue to argue that websites aren’t places of public accommodation — and therefore, they’re not covered by the ADA.

That argument suffered another blow early this year. In Frost et al. v. Lion Brand Yarn Company, the defendant (Lion Brand Yarn Company) sought to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that a “place of public accommodation" must be a physical structure. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota wasn’t persuaded. 

"[...] A website operating a store like Lion Brand’s is not meaningfully different from a physical ‘shopping center,’ and is functionally a ‘sales or rental establishment’ when it comes to the need for disabled persons to have equal  access,” the decision reads. 

Frost et al. v. Lion Brand Yarn Company: Key Takeaways

We regularly discuss ADA web accessibility claims on this blog, but major precedent-setting cases are relatively rare. Frost et al. v. Lion Brand Yarn Company probably doesn’t rise to the level of a case like Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, which helped to establish that mobile apps and websites must be accessible, despite the lack of technical standards in the ADA. 

However, the Minnesota lawsuit is noteworthy for several reasons:

• The plaintiffs, Clarence Frost and Tammy Frost, have a history of filing ADA lawsuits. They’ve also filed class action cases against Fleet Farm LLC, Cabelas, Inc., and Bath & Body Works, among others.
• The plaintiffs, who are blind, specifically allege that defendants' websites are not compatible with screen readers. The Lion Brand Yarn Company lawsuit mentions specific pop-up ads that produce confusing output when accessed with screen readers. We’ll discuss the allegations in detail in the next section of this article.
• The lawsuit alleges violations of the ADA as well as the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA allows plaintiffs to collect compensatory and punitive damages; the ADA does not allow for cash damages.

That last point is especially important: On August 24th, an amendment removed the MHRA’s cap on punitive damages, which dramatically increased the potential liability for defendants in the state. 

Related: Does An Accessibility Statement Protect Against Litigation?

Alleged Web Accessibility Violations: Poor Pop-Ups and Missing Text Alternatives

Like most web accessibility lawsuits, Frost et al. v. Lion Brand Yarn Company cites several specific barriers that violate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). WCAG is the international standard for digital accessibility, and it’s often cited in court decisions and settlements.

The alleged issues include: 

• Images lack text alternatives (alt text). For screen reader users, an image without alt text is functionally invisible. This is an especially significant problem if the image is the only source of important information about a product (for example, the color of a ball of yarn). Missing alt text is a direct violation of WCAG Success Criterion 1.1.1, "Non-text Content.”
• Dropdown menus are not accessible. If a dropdown doesn’t have appropriate markup, a user who navigates with a keyboard alone may be unable to open the menu, move through its options, or make a selection. That’s a violation of WCAG Success Criterion 2.1.1, “Keyboard”, and poorly coded menus may also violate other WCAG criteria.
• Unannounced pop-up windows. When a pop-up appears, a screen reader user may not be aware that it has opened. The plaintiffs note that the pop-up might offer promotions or deliver important information to the user — and assistive technology users are left out. That could violate WCAG Success Criterion 1.3.1, “Info and Relationships”, along with other criteria.

We should note that the amended complaint does not explicitly cite WCAG, despite using language that’s remarkably similar to the language found in the guidelines. That’s by design: At this stage, class-action lawsuits tend to focus on how alleged issues affect the potential plaintiffs. 

If the lawsuit is settled — or if the Lion Brand Yarn Company is found to have violated the ADA and the MHRA — the company will probably need to follow a remediation strategy that uses WCAG Level AA as its baseline. 

Related: Are Web Accessibility Lawsuits a “Money Grab?”

Web Accessibility Isn't Optional for ADA Compliance

Frost et al. v. Lion Brand Yarn Company may become a key case for accessibility compliance — but it’s probably just another reminder that Title III of the ADA does apply to websites, despite the occasional contrary interpretation. 

Businesses need to follow WCAG to limit their legal exposure. Of course, that’s not the only reason to adopt the best practices of inclusive design: Accessible practices can influence everything from search engine optimization (SEO) to shopping cart abandonment rates.

To learn how web accessibility is an excellent investment for your business, contact the Bureau of Internet Accessibility today to connect with a subject matter expert. Or, if you’re ready to see how your website stacks up against WCAG Level AA checkpoints, get started with a free automated scan.