Samuel Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 40 F.4th 1043

Plaintiff Samuel Love, a paraplegic wheelchair user, attempted to book a room at the San Francisco Marriott Marquis via the hotel’s online reservations site and alleged the site lacked sufficient accessibility detail for him to determine if rooms met his needs.
Love identified specific missing information he said was necessary (e.g., clearances beside beds, sink/knee clearance, presence/placement of grab bars, shower seat and handheld wand, fixture heights).
DOJ’s 2010 “Reservations Rule” requires hotel websites to identify and describe accessible features “in enough detail to reasonably permit” independent assessment; DOJ published interpretive Guidance in an appendix to the regulations describing compliance examples.
Love sued Marriott under Title III of the ADA; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Marriott’s website complied with DOJ Guidance and the Reservations Rule.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, concluded the Reservations Rule is ambiguous, afforded controlling weight to the DOJ Guidance under Kisor/Auer principles, and held Marriott’s website complied with that Guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DOJ’s interpretive Guidance is entitled to controlling weight in construing the Reservations Rule	Guidance not controlling; regulation should be read independently	DOJ Guidance is the agency’s authoritative interpretation and should be given deference	Court applied Kisor/Auer framework, found the Rule ambiguous, and afforded controlling weight to DOJ Guidance
Whether Marriott’s online reservation site provided "enough detail" about accessible features to satisfy the Reservations Rule	Website omitted necessary specifics (e.g., clearances, grab-bar locations, sink heights), so it failed to permit independent assessment	Website listed accessibility features per DOJ Guidance (room type, bed size/count, type of bathing facility, communications features) and provided staff contact for more detail	Court held Marriott’s site complied with DOJ Guidance (and thus the Reservations Rule); dismissal affirmed

Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (U.S. 2019) (limits and governs deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (principle of deferring to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations)
Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard for de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal and treating allegations as true)
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of ADA standards applicability to facilities built before/after 1991)
Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing courts’ duty to defer to DOJ interpretations of ADA implementing regulations)
Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting DOJ’s technical expertise on ADA matters)