No, it is not unfair to apply the law, and the case should not have been dismissed. The court said the law protecting people with disabilities (the ADA) covers all services a business offers, including its website, because the website is the gateway to getting its pizza. Domino's argued that it's not fair to be sued when the government hasn't given them a detailed instruction manual for website accessibility. The court disagreed, saying Domino's has known for over 20 years that this law applies to websites. The basic rule is simple: 'make your services accessible.' The lower court was also wrong to put the case on hold while waiting for the government to make rules, because that could take forever and would be unfair to Mr. Robles.

Yes, the law does require Domino's to make its website and app work for blind people. The website and app are connected to Domino's real-world pizza restaurants, so the law applies to them. Just because the government hasn't made specific rules yet doesn't mean Domino's doesn't have to follow the general rule of making things accessible. It's not unfair to Domino's because they had notice they needed to follow this law. And the court shouldn't wait for the government agency because it's not interested in making rules anytime soon and the court is able to decide this case on its own.

No. Applying the ADA to Domino's website and app does not violate the company's due process rights, and the district court erred in dismissing the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The court held that the ADA's accessibility requirements apply to the services of a public accommodation, including websites and apps that have a sufficient nexus to a physical location. Domino's had fair notice of its obligations under the ADA because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has affirmed Title III's application to websites since 1996. The ADA's statutory requirements to provide 'full and equal enjoyment' and 'effective communication' are comprehensible standards, and the lack of specific technical regulations from the DOJ does not eliminate this statutory duty or violate due process; this flexibility is a feature, not a bug. Furthermore, dismissing the case under primary jurisdiction was improper because it would cause undue and needless delay, especially since the DOJ has withdrawn its notice of proposed rulemaking, and courts are competent to adjudicate these claims.

Yes. The ADA applies to Domino's website and app because they connect customers to the goods and services of Domino's physical restaurants, which are places of public accommodation. The lack of specific regulations from the DOJ does not eliminate Domino's statutory duty under the ADA. Imposing liability on Domino's here would not violate its due process rights because Domino's has received fair notice that its website and app must comply with the ADA. The district court erred in invoking the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the DOJ is aware of the issue and has expressed no interest in the subject matter of the litigation, and referring the case to the agency would significantly postpone a ruling that the court is competent to make.

Guillermo Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot