The Winn‐Dixie web access decision creates confusion

Abstract

Juan Carlos Gil, a vision‐impaired longtime Winn‐Dixie customer, sued Winn‐Dixie because he could not access with his screen reader its website through which customers could order prescription refills for in‐store pickup and payment and because he could not link grocery coupons to its customer reward card for use with in‐store purchases. Gil made two claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First, he contended that the website itself was a public accommodation. Second, even if a website were not itself a public accommodation, its integration with and control by a public accommodation triggered the accessibility requirements of Title III. After trial, the district court ruled for Gil based on his second argument, reasoning that because Winn‐Dixie's grocery store and pharmacy unquestionably were public accommodations, the ADA required their associated website to be accessible.