## Facts

- Guillermo Robles, who is blind, used screen-reading software to access online content.
- Domino’s Pizza, LLC operated physical pizza restaurants and offered online ordering through a website and mobile application.
- Robles alleged the website and app were not coded to work with screen-reading technology, preventing him from ordering customized pizzas.
- Robles sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging denial of full and equal access to Domino’s goods and services.
- The district court concluded the ADA could apply but dismissed without prejudice, reasoning that imposing liability without specific federal web-accessibility regulations raised due process concerns and that the court should defer under primary jurisdiction to anticipated agency guidance.
- Robles appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA applies to a commercial website and mobile application that facilitate access to the goods and services of a business’s physical restaurants.
2. Whether enforcement of ADA accessibility obligations for online services violates due process when no specific federal technical web-accessibility standards have been promulgated.
3. Whether the district court properly dismissed or stayed the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine to await agency rulemaking.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held Title III applies to Domino’s website and app because they connect customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants (places of public accommodation).
- The court rejected the due process challenge, concluding Domino’s had fair notice of its ADA obligations despite the absence of codified technical web standards.
- The court held primary jurisdiction did not justify dismissal or delay because agency rulemaking was withdrawn/uncertain and courts can apply the ADA’s existing framework.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in place.

## Legal Principles

- Title III protects access to the goods and services of a place of public accommodation; coverage may extend to a website or app when inaccessibility impedes access to those goods and services offered through a physical location.
- Public accommodations must provide auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication and full and equal enjoyment for individuals with disabilities.
- A lack of specific technical regulations does not, by itself, make ADA obligations unconstitutionally vague where the statute and implementing regulations set an identifiable standard of conduct.
- Primary jurisdiction is discretionary and generally inappropriate where agency action is not forthcoming and the court can resolve the dispute using existing statutory and regulatory standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Title III can require accessibility for a website and mobile app that function as gateways to a company’s physical restaurants, and that the absence of detailed federal web standards neither violates due process nor warrants deferring the case to agency processes.


Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122 (2019)