California Unruh Act Website Accessibility Lawsuit Defense Lawyer
Predatory web accessibility lawsuits filed against large and small businesses alike are angering. Business litigation under the Unruh Act website accessibility can be resolved relatively quickly.
Updated: 05/20/2023
By Douglas Wade, Attorney
Email | Call (800) 484-4610
All California businesses that have websites must comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. This Act regulates the accessibility of websites for businesses without a physical location. California Unruh Act is codified under Civil Civil Code sections 51 and 52 – complete statutory language below. Our Unruh Act defense attorneys created a comprehensive law outline that many lawyers relied and consulted with to assist them in understanding the law.
In this article, we will discuss website accessibility lawsuit as follows:
What Is The Difference Between ADA and Unruh Act For Websites?
Under federal laws, ADA Title III has been interpreted as only to apply to websites for businesses with a physical location. However, California’s Unruh Act under Civil Code sections 51 and 52 applies to the websites accessibility of all businesses. The ADA also does not allow plaintiffs to claim damages, only attorney’s fees, but the Unruh Act allows plaintiffs to claim 3 x damages per incident.
For purposes of web accessibility lawsuit, the classifications of Civ. Code, § 51, prohibiting discrimination by business establishments based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability, are not exclusive but illustrative only; the statute prohibits all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments. Civ. Code, § 51.5, expands on Civ. Code, § 51, by specifying forms of discrimination, including refusal to deal. The classifications specified in Civ. Code, § 51.5, which are identical to those of Civ. Code, § 51, are likewise not exclusive and encompass other personal characteristics identified in many Unruh act website accessibility lawsuit.
Businesses Outside California
Specific personal jurisdiction existed in a disability discrimination suit alleging a business outside California violating California Unruh Act website accessibility is valid when shown by evidence that the company made enough sales to Californians that its website, from which the parties’ dispute arose, was the equivalent of a physical store in California and the company also sent catalogs to California residents.
Arizona adoption-related website operators who rejected a California same-sex couple’s application to post their profile on the website had their First Amendment defense to a claim made pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act rejected because: (1) California had the constitutional authority to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations; (2) California’s interest in combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was compelling; and (3) the Unruh Act prohibited such discrimination in order to eliminate the harms caused by the discriminatory conduct, not to silence particular viewpoints.
Video Streaming
Video programming provider’s motion to dismiss a hearing-impaired customer’s claims that a streaming library violated California Unruh Act website accessibility was dismissed where the streaming video library was a website, not an actual physical place, and under judicial precedent, it was not a place of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
No Federal Law Preemption over California Law
Preemption clause under 49 U.S.C.S. § 41713(b)(1) of the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) did not expressly preempt visually impaired individuals’ claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC §§ 51 et seq., and under the California Disabled Persons Act, CC §§ 54 et seq., because an airline’s website and kiosks were not “services” under the ADA; further, applying state law to regulate the accessibility of websites and kiosks would not have an impermissible effect on competition and prices in the airline industry.
Airline was entitled to dismissal of visually impaired individuals’ claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC §§ 51 et seq., and the Disabled Persons Act, CC §§ 54 et seq., because the claims were field preempted under the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C.S. § 41705; website and kiosk accessibility were pervasively regulated under 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.31(c) and 382.57.
Personal Jurisdiction
Specific personal jurisdiction existed in a disability discrimination suit alleging that a Georgia company’s violated California Unruh Act website accessibility because purposeful availment was shown by evidence that the company made enough sales to Californians that its website, from which the parties’ dispute arose, was the equivalent of a physical store in California and the company also sent catalogs to California residents.
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment
Most recent blogs: