324 F. Supp. 3d 658
E.D. Va.2018Background
- Plaintiff Keith Carroll is permanently blind and uses screen-reading software; he alleges FFCU's website has accessibility barriers (missing alt text, unlabeled forms, redundant links) that deterred him from using the site and visiting the branch.
- Defendant FedFinancial Federal Credit Union operates a website advertising services to the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metro areas and has a physical branch in Silver Spring, Maryland.
- Carroll sued under Title III of the ADA, alleging the website is a service of FFCU's brick-and-mortar public accommodation and is not accessible to visually impaired users.
- FFCU moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim; it also argued websites are not places of public accommodation and that WCAG-based obligations would raise due process concerns.
- The Court considered FFCU’s admissions that it targets the Washington, D.C. area, has ~298 Virginia members, and sends mailings to Virginia members in analyzing jurisdiction and venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Carroll: FFCU targets DC-area including Virginia residents; has Virginia members and sends mailings | FFCU: not resident of VA; no targeted advertising to VA; only branch in MD | Jurisdiction exists — FFCU has minimum contacts (site targets DC metro; has VA members and mailings); jurisdiction reasonable |
| Venue | Carroll: events/omissions occurred in VA where he was denied access | FFCU: website maintained elsewhere; proper venue is District of Maryland (branch in MD) | Venue proper in E.D. Va.; plaintiff was impaired from Virginia and site targeted VA readers |
| Applicability of Title III to website | Carroll: website is a service/privilege of FFCU's physical place; barriers prevented him from accessing branch info | FFCU: Title III covers physical places only; website not a public accommodation | Court: need not decide whether websites alone are "places"; website that operates in tandem with physical location is covered by Title III; plaintiff pleaded sufficient nexus |
| Remedy / Standards (WCAG) | Carroll: cites WCAG as recognized accessibility standard (but seeks ADA relief) | FFCU: imposing private WCAG would violate due process; site already offers phone support | Court: plaintiff does not request mandatory adoption of WCAG; WCAG may be referenced but court need not adopt it now; effective-communication defense premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes federal plausibility pleading standard)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts / due process for personal jurisdiction)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (sliding-scale Internet contacts test in Fourth Circuit)
- Thousand Oaks Barrel Co., LLC v. Deep South Barrels LLC, 241 F. Supp. 3d 708 (E.D. Va.) (application of ALS Scan test to Internet contacts)
- Nat'l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal.) (website accessibility and ADA coverage of services of physical stores)
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla.) (website directly connected to physical stores; ADA covers site services)
- Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 196 (captioning and ADA in an online services context)
- Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va.) (distinguishing Title II/III coverage for online forums lacking nexus to physical place)
- Scribd, Inc. v. Nat'l Fed. of the Blind, 97 F. Supp. 3d 565 (D. Vt.) (Congress intended ADA to respond to technological change; Internet access central to participation)