Fundamentals
You have encountered a fundamental question that cuts to the core of modern commerce and human rights. Can a company be sued if its wellness app is not accessible to people with disabilities? The answer is an unequivocal yes. The legal and ethical landscape has firmly established that digital spaces, including mobile applications, are considered places of public accommodation.
This means they are subject to the same accessibility requirements as a physical storefront under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The conversation has moved past whether digital offerings are included; the focus now is on the degree of accessibility required.
At the heart of this issue is Title III of the ADA, a piece of civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation. For decades, this was understood primarily in the context of physical spaces, such as requiring wheelchair ramps or accessible restrooms.
As society has migrated to a digital-first existence, the legal interpretation has evolved in tandem. Courts have increasingly affirmed that a business cannot offer its goods and services to the public on a digital platform that excludes entire segments of that public. A wellness app, which by its nature offers health-related services and information, falls squarely within this interpretation.
A company’s digital presence, including its mobile wellness application, is viewed by the U.S. legal system as a place of public accommodation.
The absence of specific, government-mandated technical standards within the text of the ADA has created a complex environment. This has led to a reliance on established, consensus-based guidelines to define what “accessible” means in a digital context. This lack of explicit legislative language does not, however, create a legal shield for companies.
Instead, it has prompted the judicial system and regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) to look toward established best practices as the benchmark for compliance.
What Is the Legal Foundation for Digital Accessibility
The legal precedent for these lawsuits is built upon a logical extension of existing civil rights law. The core argument is that if a business provides its services through a mobile app, that app must be usable by everyone, including individuals with visual, hearing, motor, or cognitive impairments.
A visually impaired person using a screen reader, for example, must be able to navigate the app, access information, and utilize its features. When an app is not coded to allow for this, it creates a barrier to access that is legally analogous to a physical obstruction, like a flight of stairs with no elevator.
The increasing number of lawsuits filed year after year underscores the seriousness of this obligation. These legal actions are not confined to a single industry; they span retail, hospitality, finance, and, increasingly, healthcare and wellness. The central claim in these cases is that the inaccessibility of a website or app denies individuals with disabilities the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, and advantages offered by the business.
How Is Digital Accessibility Defined in Practice
In the absence of a specific legal definition of web accessibility within the ADA itself, a global standard has been adopted as the de facto requirement. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide a detailed framework for making digital content accessible. Developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), WCAG is organized around four core principles:
- Perceivable Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive. This means providing text alternatives for non-text content and making it easier for users to see and hear content.
- Operable User interface components and navigation must be operable. This includes making all functionality available from a keyboard and giving users enough time to read and use content.
- Understandable Information and the operation of the user interface must be understandable. This involves making text content readable and understandable and making web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
- Robust Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.
Most legal actions and settlements reference WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the target for compliance. This set of criteria provides a clear, testable, and internationally recognized benchmark for accessibility. A company that develops a wellness app without consideration for these guidelines exposes itself to significant legal risk.
Intermediate
A company’s legal exposure for an inaccessible wellness app is a matter of direct liability under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the original 1990 statute did not envision the app economy, the Department of Justice and federal courts have made it clear that the ADA’s principles apply with full force to digital domains.
This interpretation hinges on the concept of “public accommodation,” which has been expanded to include digital-only businesses, not just those with a physical presence. The legal reasoning is that if an app is the gateway to a company’s services, then that gateway must be open to everyone.
The proliferation of lawsuits in this area is a direct result of this expanding interpretation. These are not speculative legal challenges; they are based on established civil rights law. Plaintiffs in these cases are not required to prove that the company intended to discriminate.
The simple fact that the app is inaccessible to a person with a disability is often sufficient to establish a violation. This places the burden of compliance squarely on the shoulders of the app developer and the company that owns it.
What Is the “nexus” Debate and Why Does It Matter
For a period, there was a significant legal debate centered on whether a website or app had to have a “nexus,” or connection, to a physical location to be considered a place of public accommodation. Some courts initially ruled that the ADA only applied to digital properties that were extensions of a brick-and-mortar business.
However, this interpretation has been increasingly rejected. The prevailing view, supported by the DOJ and multiple circuit courts, is that a commercial website or app is a place of public accommodation in its own right, regardless of whether the company has a physical storefront. For a wellness app company, this means that even if the business is entirely digital, it is still subject to the ADA’s accessibility requirements.
The legal system has largely concluded that a digital-only business is a place of public accommodation, making the “nexus” to a physical location a diminishingly relevant factor.
This shift is critical because it removes any ambiguity for digital-native companies. A wellness app that offers subscription services, personalized plans, or health tracking is a commercial enterprise affecting commerce, and as such, it must be accessible. The case of Robles v. Domino’s Pizza was a landmark decision in this area, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the ADA applies to websites and mobile apps, setting a powerful precedent.
Understanding the Role of WCAG as a Legal Standard
In the legal vacuum left by the ADA’s lack of specific technical requirements for digital accessibility, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) have become the accepted benchmark. Courts and the DOJ consistently refer to WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the standard for determining whether a digital property is accessible. These guidelines are extensive and detailed, providing a clear roadmap for developers.
Here is a comparison of the different conformance levels within WCAG 2.1:
| Conformance Level | Description | Legal Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Level A | This is the minimum level of conformance. It addresses the most basic accessibility barriers. | Achieving only Level A is generally considered insufficient to defend against an ADA lawsuit. |
| Level AA | This level addresses more significant and common barriers for users with disabilities. It is the accepted standard for most accessibility legislation worldwide. | This is the level most often cited in legal settlements and DOJ guidance. It is the target standard for ADA compliance. |
| Level AAA | This is the highest level of conformance and is used for specialized content. | While laudable, achieving Level AAA is not typically required by law and may not be possible for all content. |
For a wellness app company, aiming for anything less than WCAG 2.1 Level AA is a significant legal risk. Compliance involves a range of technical considerations, from ensuring that all images have alternative text for screen readers to making sure that the app can be fully navigated using only a keyboard. These are not cosmetic features; they are essential for providing equal access.
Academic
The legal framework governing the accessibility of wellness applications is a dynamic and increasingly litigious area of jurisprudence. It represents a critical intersection of civil rights law, technology, and healthcare. The central legal instrument, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, has been judicially interpreted to extend its reach beyond physical structures into the intangible realm of cyberspace.
This jurisprudential evolution has established that mobile applications, as conduits for commerce and services, are places of public accommodation. Consequently, a company offering a wellness app that is inoperable by individuals with disabilities is exposing itself to litigation, regulatory enforcement, and significant financial and reputational damage.
The volume of federal lawsuits concerning digital accessibility has grown exponentially, from a few hundred in the early 2010s to thousands annually. This trend is not driven by a change in the law itself, but by a broader recognition of its applicability to the digital world.
The plaintiffs in these cases are often individuals with visual or hearing impairments who rely on assistive technologies like screen readers or captions. When a wellness app fails to support these technologies, it effectively denies these users access to the health and wellness services it offers. This is a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA.
What Is the Current Stance of the Department of Justice
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has consistently affirmed that the ADA applies to web and mobile technologies. While the DOJ has, for years, declined to issue specific regulations defining technical standards for accessibility for private entities, it has not been silent on the matter. Through Statements of Interest in ongoing litigation, settlement agreements, and official guidance, the DOJ has made its position clear ∞ it expects all public accommodations, including digital ones, to be accessible.
In recent years, the DOJ has become more assertive. It has published guidance that, while not legally binding in the same way as a regulation, explicitly states that website and app accessibility is a priority. This guidance points to the WCAG as the recognized standard for compliance. The DOJ’s position is highly influential in the courts and sends a clear signal to businesses that the time for voluntary compliance is giving way to a period of active enforcement.
Case Law Analysis and the Rejection of the “due Process” Defense
A common defense raised by companies in these lawsuits is that the lack of specific government regulations violates their due process rights, as they have not been given fair notice of what is required of them. This argument has been systematically rejected by the courts. In Robles v.
Domino’s Pizza, the Ninth Circuit held that the ADA and its implementing regulations, combined with the DOJ’s longstanding interpretation, provide sufficient notice that websites and apps must be accessible. The court reasoned that waiting for specific regulations is not a prerequisite for enforcing existing civil rights law.
The legal precedent is now firmly established. A company cannot claim ignorance of its obligations. The table below outlines some key legal concepts and their application in digital accessibility cases:
| Legal Concept | Application in Wellness App Accessibility |
|---|---|
| Place of Public Accommodation | A wellness app that offers services to the public, whether free or paid, is considered a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. |
| Auxiliary Aids and Services | The ADA requires businesses to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication. This has been interpreted to include accessible technology, such as apps compatible with screen readers. |
| Nexus Requirement | The requirement for a connection to a physical location is a fading legal theory. The prevailing view is that digital-only businesses are covered by the ADA. |
| Due Process | The argument that a lack of specific regulations violates due process has been consistently rejected by federal courts. |
For a company in the wellness space, the legal and ethical imperatives are clear. The product must be designed and maintained to be accessible to all users. This involves more than a one-time check; it requires an ongoing commitment to accessibility, including regular audits, training for developers, and a process for responding to user feedback. The failure to do so is not merely a customer service issue; it is a violation of federal law.
References
- United States, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. “Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps Provided by State and Local Government Entities ∞ A Small Entity Compliance Guide.” ADA.gov, 22 May 2024.
- “Websites and Mobile Applications ∞ Do They Comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act?” The Florida Bar Journal, vol. 90, no. 10, 2016.
- Zaccardelli, Lisa A. et al. “Digital Accessibility Lawsuits on the Rise and the DOJ is Taking Action.” Hinckley Allen, 31 Aug. 2023.
- Garcia, Lauren. “Mobile Websites & Apps as Places of Public Accommodation Under the ADA.” St. John’s Law School Center for Law and Religion, 17 May 2024.
- “Record Number of Lawsuits Filed Over Accessibility for People with Disabilities.” SHRM, 23 Mar. 2022.
- “Why This Electronic Health Records Accessibility Lawsuit Matters.” Equal Entry, 14 June 2022.
- “Not If, But When ∞ Applying the ADA’s Accessibility Requirements to Mobile Apps.” JD Supra, 15 Dec. 2020.
- “Why Companies Are Getting Sued for Selling ADA Website Compliance that Does not Work 100%.” Accessibility.com, 27 Oct. 2021.
Reflection
The information presented here provides a clear legal and technical framework. It outlines the obligations and risks associated with digital accessibility. This knowledge is the starting point. The path from understanding these requirements to implementing them effectively is a journey specific to each organization.
It involves a deep consideration of your users, your technology, and your company’s commitment to inclusivity. True accessibility is a continuous process of learning, testing, and improvement, driven by a genuine desire to serve every individual who seeks to engage with your services.
