Melissa Earll v. Ebay, Inc.
599 F. App'x 695 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 'place of public accommodation' must have some connection to an actual, physical place; therefore, purely online businesses without a nexus to a physical location are not subject to the Act's accessibility requirements.
Facts:
- eBay Inc. operates as an online marketplace for goods and services.
- As part of its operations, eBay utilized an aural identification system for its users.
- Earll, an individual with a hearing impairment, was unable to use eBay's services that required the aural identification system.
- eBay's services are delivered exclusively through its website and are not connected to any actual, physical location open to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Earll filed a lawsuit against eBay in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the ADA and California state laws.
- The district court dismissed all of Earll's claims.
- Earll, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with eBay as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a purely online service, like eBay, which is not connected to any physical place, constitute a 'place of public accommodation' subject to the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A purely online service that is not connected to a physical place is not a 'place of public accommodation' under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court relied on its precedent in Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., which interpreted the ADA to require 'some connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical place.' Because eBay's services are not connected to any physical location, the court held that eBay is not subject to the ADA. Consequently, Earll's California Disabled Persons Act claim, which relies on an underlying ADA violation, also fails. Furthermore, her Unruh Civil Rights Act claim fails because she did not plead or prove intentional discrimination, as eBay's aural system applied to all users and its failure to provide an alternative did not constitute willful, affirmative misconduct.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the Ninth Circuit's 'nexus test,' which limits the application of the ADA to websites and online services that have a connection to a physical place of business. This holding deepens a significant circuit split, as other federal circuits have found that websites can be places of public accommodation regardless of a physical nexus. The ruling narrows the scope of disability rights in the digital realm within the Ninth Circuit, creating legal uncertainty for nationwide online businesses and placing the onus on Congress to clarify the ADA's application to the internet.
