General Discussion

SickOfTheOnePct

(8,710 posts)

12. Sorry, but you're wrong

Sat Apr 4, 2015, 10:47 AM

Apr 2015

The case was won based on violations of the ADA, which falls under US Code 42. The ADA deals with the public accommodation of disabilities.

Section 508 falls under US Code 29, and is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Plaintiffs in the case cited Section 508 as part of their arguments, as an example of what they wanted Target to do with their website. However, the court order was based on the ADA, which is unrelated to Section 508.

Additionally, the lawsuit against Target was based on the inability of the blind to use the website itself, not to the use of anything they bought on the website. The lawsuit against Netflix is the opposite - the plaintiff isn't claiming he can't use the website, he's claiming that he can't use something he buys from the website.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

9th Circuit Court rules Netflix isn�t subject to disability law [View all] n2doc Apr 2015 OP

I think I would have ruled differently. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #1

I can't believe something can't be worked out yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #3

Not possible. former9thward Apr 2015 #26

Oh wow. Thanks! yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #28

Partially correect SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #29

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #8

I'm with you. Ms. Toad Apr 2015 #14

Actually SoCalNative Apr 2015 #31

Should everything sold/rented by a company be usable by the disabled? n/t SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #32

No SoCalNative Apr 2015 #35

Choice v. mandate SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #36

Yep. That's the way I see it too. hifiguy Apr 2015 #23

Doesn't Netflix caption its original content? ananda Apr 2015 #30

This will be overturned... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #2

By the Supreme Court? yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #4

You don't think it deserves that much effort? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #9

Answering for myself SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #24

I was just surprised you thought it would be turned over at the SC that's all. yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #27

I still think it will be....the Federation for the Blind VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #37

How far should this be taken? NutmegYankee Apr 2015 #5

Section 508 applies to federal government websites SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #7

No it doesn't sorry there is precedence... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #11

Sorry, but you're wrong SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #12

then why would Target be sued and settle? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #13

I never said websites are immune SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #15

WTF? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #16

I highly recommend that you do some research rather than continuing to promulgate misinformation SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #17

I understand what YOU are saying....but I said Precedence.. VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #18

Since you "do" Section 508 SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #21

Netflix=video store. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #20

Exactly n/t SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #22

This is really ridiculous. It's a subscription movie/show site. NutmegYankee Apr 2015 #6

I agree, the lawsuit is ridiculous n/t SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #10

Take it up with the content creators. nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #19

I agree with the outcome though not with the reason given SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #25

Stupid lawsuit FLPanhandle Apr 2015 #33

Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #34