Hey YOU.

Yes, I am talking to YOU specifically.

I am not talking to anyone else reading this. I am talking to YOU.

I want YOU to imagine a scenario.

Tomorrow YOU may try to look up an item in Amazon.com. YOU bring up the Amazon app, and when you run a search it says,

"We apologize < YOUR NAME HERE >, you must go to an Amazon Store to search for this item."

You think, well thats weird. I guess JB finally lost his mind. You decide to try another site. You open Google to just use the shopping feature. You run the search query for your item, and again you are hit with:

"We apologize < YOUR NAME HERE >, you must go to a Google Store to search for this item."

Is this some internet joke you are not aware of? Is the internet pulling pranks to raise awareness for something?

Maybe you should check Reddit and see if this is some practical joke. You open up Reddit.com and check the News and greeted with the following:

"We apologize < YOUR NAME HERE >, you must go to a Reddit Forum in Albuquerque, New Mexico to get the news today."

In a fit of rage-panic | rage-panic | rage-panic | rage-panic | you pick up your phone and call a friend:

Friend: "Hello"

YOU: "Hey, so quick question, apropos of nothing, is your internet being weird?"

Friend: "Like...how?"

YOU: "Like when you try to search for something, anything, it tells you to go to a store to get the info?"

Friend: "Uh no,"

YOU: "So you can search Google?"

Friend: "Yep"

YOU: "It doesn't say you have to go to a store?"

Friend: "Negative"

YOU: "What about Amazon? Can you search for things on Amazon?"

Friend: "Hey yeah....Now that you mention it.....I am so glad said something. I need to order some blagners for my thrusher squashers."

YOU: "But you can see and order things without being forced to go to a "store"?"

Friend: "Yep...hey are you ok?"

YOU: "At this point, thats a questionable question. One last thing. Can you look up a News article on Reddit?"

Friend: "Uh sure, which one?"

YOU: "AAAANNNYYYONNNNE"

Friend: "ok man, chill. geez. you called me. Yeah Reddit has News from today, and no I am not asked to go to a Reddit store. Oh man, can you imagine what a Reddit store would be like? It would be amazing and awful all at the same...."

YOU: "QUIET! Something is happening with my internet. Can you call everyone you know and see if anyone else if experiencing anomalies?"

...5 minutes later...

Friend: "Everyone else says their internet is fine. Maybe it's just YOU."

YOU: "...but why ME?"

---

Imagine the internet targeted YOU one day. Your entire digital access is revoked. Everything you need or want to know is gathered in a physical location, that may not be convenient to your location.

Simply because YOU are YOU.

You are denied access to the basic freedoms of the internet. The pursuit of knowledge is cattle-gapped by this requirement to visit a physical location to get the information you need. It's available to everyone else...just not YOU.

How would that make YOU feel?

---

In August 2022, the California Court of Appeals determined private businesses (specified in Title III of the ADA) without a physical location did not have to follow the "public accommodations" statute of the Americans with Disabilities Act for its online websites and applications.

This ruling stemmed from the case of Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc, where the plaintiff accused Cot’n Wash of having significant accessibility barriers with their website. This seems to contrast with the Department of Justice, which has consistently stated private businesses fall under Title III. However, things get murky when the consideration is based on the presence of a physical location. Apparently the context of "Public Accommodation" requires having a brick and mortar storefront.

Why did this happen?

The laws defining the scope of the ADA are over 30 years old, meaning the digital landscape has drastically changed in that time-frame. When the ADA was drafted, it was almost certain that any online presence of a business would be accompanied by a physical storefront. In the internet's infancy, websites were just dynamic billboards, not really providing any utility. Today, the web is full of interactive applications that allow users to conduct their entire business online, never needing to step foot in a real location.

It appears the courts are making this decision to highlight the need for a change to the current iteration of the language in the law. The CA Court of Appeals opinion letter states, "Under current law, we cannot read this phrase as including retail websites without any connection to a physical space.” The Court stresses the need for clarity from Congress in cases such as this, making a point to note that Title III does not negate all websites, but currently only applies to businesses with physical locations.

That begs the question, What defines a "Physical Location" and "Public Accommodation"? Is it just a rented space with a business marquee? Does it have to have furniture? Do people have to work there?

With VR companies like Meta on the horizon, the scope of Title III needs to be defined very quickly, or these new virtual interactions are going to get slammed with accessibility issues very soon.

It all seems very bureaucratic and lawyery. Common sense would easily rule in favor of the plaintiff, but the letter of the law is slower to change. However, this will likely have a positive outcome in the end. Ideally, this will spark the DOJ to fast track its requirements regarding Title III, which will lay the foundation for proper rulings in the future, creating a better internet for just YOU and just ME.