## Facts

- Juan Carlos Gil, a legally blind customer, used screen-reader software to access websites.
- Winn-Dixie operated physical grocery and pharmacy stores and maintained a website offering functions tied to in-store services, including prescription refills for in-store pickup and linking digital coupons to a loyalty card for automatic application at checkout.
- Gil attempted to use the website but found most of it incompatible with screen readers, testifying that roughly 90% was inaccessible.
- Because of the inaccessibility, Gil could not independently refill prescriptions online or link digital coupons, and he was forced to forgo those conveniences or rely on others for assistance.
- Gil sued under Title III of the ADA seeking injunctive relief to require website accessibility.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA applies to a retailer’s website when the website functions as a service, privilege, or advantage of the retailer’s physical stores (places of public accommodation).
2. Whether the website’s inaccessibility to screen-reader users denied a blind customer full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, or advantages of the physical stores in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
3. What injunctive relief is appropriate to remedy an ongoing Title III violation involving website accessibility.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court found for Gil on the merits of his Title III claim.
- The court held that the website was a service, privilege, or advantage of Winn-Dixie’s physical stores and that a sufficient nexus existed between the website’s functions and the stores’ services.
- The court concluded that the website’s inaccessibility operated as a discriminatory barrier that denied Gil full and equal enjoyment of store-related services offered through the website.
- The court entered injunctive relief requiring Winn-Dixie to make the website accessible, adopt an accessibility policy and related practices (including testing and training), and use WCAG 2.0 Level AA as a compliance reference.

## Legal Principles

- Title III prohibits disability-based discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
- A website can fall within Title III’s coverage when it is closely connected to, and functions as, a service or advantage of a physical place of public accommodation (a “nexus” theory), even if the website itself is not a listed public-accommodation category.
- Denying effective access to website features that enable or streamline in-store transactions (e.g., prescription refills and coupon linkage) can constitute denial of full and equal enjoyment under Title III.
- Although the ADA does not set binding website technical standards, courts may use WCAG criteria as an objective benchmark when crafting injunctive relief.
- Private Title III plaintiffs generally obtain injunctive relief rather than damages, and courts may order ongoing compliance measures to prevent recurrence.

## Conclusion

The court held that a grocery chain’s website, because it served as a gateway to store services and benefits, had to be accessible to blind customers under ADA Title III; the website’s incompatibility with screen readers violated the statute, warranting injunctive relief requiring WCAG-guided remediation and ongoing accessibility governance.


Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2017)