National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34213
D. Vt.2015Background
- NFB and Heidi Viens sue Scribd in Vermont federal court alleging title III ADA discrimination due to inaccessibility of Scribd's website and mobile apps for blind users.
- Scribd operates a California-based digital library with a web platform and apps, offering a subscription service to access over 40 million titles.
- Plaintiffs contend Scribd’s interface is exclusively visual and not operable via non-visual screen-reading technology, denying access to services.
- Scribd argues it has no physical public location and the complaint lacks any allegation of such a place.
- The court assesses the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and, rejecting the motion, addresses ambiguity in Title III and legislative history to determine reach.
- Court ultimately concludes plaintiffs have alleged Scribd owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation and denies the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title III reach Scribd’s website and apps without a physical location? | NFB argues internet services can be public accommodations. | Scribd contends no nexus to a physical place; website operators are not covered. | Yes; court finds plausibly that Scribd is a place of public accommodation. |
| Is the statute's text ambiguous on covering internet services? | NFB contends ambiguity supports broad interpretation. | Scribd argues text is clear and does not include internet-only entities. | Ambiguity exists; court may consider broader context and history. |
| Do canons of statutory construction resolve the ambiguity in Scribd’s favor? | NFB asserts liberal construction aligns with disabled-access purposes. | Scribd relies on canons like noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis to limit to physical places. | No; canons do not resolve the ambiguity alone; legislative history informs interpretation. |
| Does DOJ interpretation support extending Title III to websites? | NFB relies on DOJ position that ADA applies to web-based services. | Scribd argues limited deference to agency views; not controlling law. | Court affords Skidmore-deference and finds DOJ view persuasive to support coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir.1999) (broad interpretation of coverage beyond physical access)
- Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.1994) (public accommodations extend beyond physical premises; travel service example)
- Doe v. Mutual Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir.1999) (electronic spaces can be covered by Title III)
- Netflix, Inc. v.govern. Netflix, 869 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Mass. 2012) (website services fall within public accommodations per liberal reading)