National Ass'n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.
869 F. Supp. 2d 196
D. Mass.2012Background
- NAD, WMAD/HI, and Nettles sue Netflix under Title III ADA for failure to caption Watch Instantly for deaf/hard-of-hearing users.
- Netflix moved for judgment on the pleadings alleging insufficient ADA facts, CVAA preclusion, and mootness.
- CVAA and FCC regulations (47 C.F.R. § 79.4) were enacted to require captioning on Internet-delivered video after specific dates.
- Watch Instantly streams video online; plaintiffs allege captions exist only for a subset and features like recommendations are not captioned.
- Court addresses whether the site is a place of public accommodation, whether Netflix controls captioning, CVAA-ADA interplay, and mootness.
- Court holds that the motion to dismiss should be denied and discusses potential discovery on control and scope, with later summary judgment possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watch Instantly is a place of public accommodation under the ADA | Watch Instantly falls within categories like service establishment or place of exhibition. | Web sites are not traditional places of public accommodation. | Yes; Watch Instantly fits multiple ADA categories as a place of public accommodation. |
| Whether Netflix controls the captioning of streaming content | Netflix owns and operates the site and works to caption content. | Content captioning rests with copyright owners; Netflix may not control captions. | Plaintiff pled sufficient ownership/operation of a public accommodation; control may be shown and warrants discovery. |
| Whether the CVAA precludes or carves out ADA coverage for streaming captioning | CVAA complements the ADA; does not repeal or supersede it for streaming. | CVAA creates irreconcilable conflicts and carves out captioning from the ADA. | No irreconcilable conflict; CVAA and ADA can coexist with additional analyses; CVAA does not repeal broad ADA claims. |
| Whether the ADA claim is moot due to CVAA regulations | CVAA does not cover all programming; ADA remedy remains for uncovered material. | FCC regime renders ADA claims moot. | Not moot; CVAA does not foreclose ADA claims for non-covered programming. |
| Whether exhaustion of CVAA administrative remedies is required before ADA litigation | Administrative remedies may be unnecessary for some claims; restoration of efficiency considerations. | Plaintiffs must exhaust CVAA remedies before ADA action. | Court discusses but indicates potential need to separate claims or proceed with consideration of CVAA remedies; not dispositive at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carparts Distrib. Ctr. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Assoc., 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (places of public accommodation extend beyond physical locations; applies to internet services)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (distinguishes services of a public accommodation from services inside it)
- Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc., 361 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2004) (separate administrative and judicial paths do not imply conflict between remedies)
- Zulauf v. Kentucky Educ. Television, 28 F.Supp.2d 1022 (E.D. Ky. 1998) (private ADA rights may coexist with administrative remedies under Telecommunications Act)
- Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (positive repugnancy rule; give effect to both statutes absent irreconcilable conflict)