This document provides a brief history of web accessibility and the law. It discusses several key legal cases from Australia, the United States, and Canada that established that websites must comply with disability discrimination laws and be accessible to people with disabilities such as visual impairments. The document notes that while the Australian Human Rights Commission receives complaints about inaccessible websites each year, they are typically resolved through negotiation. It outlines some Australian cases on this issue from 2009 to 2012 and suggests that the next step for Australia may be stronger legal actions to enforce web accessibility.
6. Maguire v. SOCOG
Australia 2000
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Section 24
Goods, services and facilities
(1) It is unlawful for a person who, whether
for payment or not, provides goods or
services, or makes facilities available, to
discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person’s disability or a
disability of any of that other person’s
associates:
http://humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/1999/dd000150.htm
7. Access Now v. Southwest Airlines
United States of America 2002
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
a website was a virtual construct and
hence not a “public place of
accommodation”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now_v._Southwest_Airlines
8. National Federation of the Blind v. Target
Corporation
United States of America 2008
“websites like Target.com must be
accessible to the blind under both
California law and the Americans with
Disabilities Act”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Blind_v._Target_Corporation
9. Meanwhile in Australia
Human Rights Commission received on average
one formal complaint each year about inaccessible
websites.
These complaints are from visually impaired
Australians, who can not access significant
websites, all Government, except one investor
having problems with a real estate site.
All were resolved by negotiation.
10. Kerr v. Virgin Blue
Australia 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/virgin-blue-in-court-over-website-20090119-7kc1.html
11. King v. Jetstar Airlines
Australia 2012
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Section 24(2)
It is not unlawful discrimination if the
provision of the services or the making
available of the facilities would impose
“unjustifiable hardship” on the person.
http://www.hwlebsworth.com.au/latest-news-a-publications/publications/transport/aviation/item/745-victory-for-low-
12. National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix
United States of America 2012
“the Americans with Disabilities Act applies
to website-only businesses”
http://dredf.org/captioning/
13. Jodhan v. Canada
Canada 2012
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
“Two systemic failures that underlie the
government’s failure to provide online
services in a manner that is accessible to
the visually impaired were demonstrated in
this case.”
http://recueil.cmf.gc.ca/eng/2011/2010fc1197.html
14. National Federation Of The Blind v. HRB
Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group
United States of America 2013
“Under the terms of the five year decree,
H&R Block’s website, tax filing utility and
mobile apps will conform to the Level AA
Success Criteria of the WCAG 2.0.”
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/March/14-crt-239.html
15. American Council for the Blind v. Tangherlini
United States of America 2014
“The great irony here is that the agency
charged with ensuring that others comply
with the Rehabilitation Act and make their
websites accessible to the blind is not itself
complying with the law. GSA is effectively
telling federal contractors to ‘do as I say,
not as I do,’”
http://www.law360.com/articles/530500/gsa-sued-scolded-for-its-blind-unfriendly-
website