[accesscomp] net Flick and the ADA

"Bob Acosta" <boacosta@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 1 Aug 2012 11:24:46 -0700

    Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to comply with
ADA
The following article is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes ADA Center
(
www.adagreatlakes.org
) for your information:
The National Law Journal
July 31, 2012
Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to comply with ADA
By Sheri Qualters
Netflix Inc. asked a federal judge in Massachusetts for permission to appeal
his ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires the
company to provide closed-captioning text for its web-only streaming video.
Netflix filed a motion on July 27 asking U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor
to amend his June 19 order denying Netflix's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and to certify an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.
Ponsor, a senior judge in Springfield, Mass., issued the order in National
Association of the Deaf v. Netflix Inc. The organization, along with a
number of additional advocacy groups, sued Netflix in June 2011 over its
lack of closed-captioned text.
In its motion, Netflix called Ponsor's order "the broadest-ever extension of
the ADA's scope, thereby opening the door to amorphous and seemingly
limitless regulation of the Internet in a way Congress did not envision and
no other court has accepted."
The company added that Ponsor's ruling, the first applying the ADA to
streaming technology, conflicted with the Twenty-First Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. That law established a
regulatory scheme for closed-captioning on streaming video content.
Ponsor's order "upends settled expectations in the streaming video
programming industry," the motion argued.
"In addition to these troubling consequences for Internet providers, this
ruling now opens this case to broad-ranging litigation into every detail of,
in particular, Netflix's streaming video business - from the technology it
invents to make streaming possible, to its relationships with third parties
in the complex supply-chain ranging from upstream video content owners to
downstream manufacturers of end-user devices," Netflix's argued.
"Interlocutory review, to allow either confirmation or reversal of the
Court's decision by the First Circuit, would help settle many of the
questions raised by this case - not to mention reduce the spiraling costs of
this case, which, as Plaintiffs' recent filings make clear, seeks to open
Netflix's entire streaming business to scrutiny and litigation," the company
said.
Among the legal questions of first impressions the ruling raises, Netflix
argued, was whether ADA regulations governing places of "public"
accommodation cover the use of goods and services in private residences.
Others include whether the ADA should apply to the Internet or to conduct
governed by the Video Accessibility Act, and whether the scope of that law
applies to all video programming or only to types formerly shown on
television.
The plaintiffs will oppose the motion, said Catha Worthman, a partner at
Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson in Oakland, Calif. "We do not believe
that there are grounds for interlocutory appeal because as the judge decided
the issues, he did so in accord with clear First Circuit law."
The plaintiffs "want to see this case resolved as quickly as possible, and
we believe that an appeal would cause unnecessary delay," she said.
Ponsor's order was a "very, very important decision that brings the ADA into
the 21st Century," said Arlene Mayerson, directing attorney of the
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc. in Berkeley, Calif., which
also represented the plaintiffs.
"As Main Street moves to the Internet, it's imperative that the ADA be
available for people with disabilities when they face discrimination," she
said.
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen in Boston also represented the plaintiffs,
who include the Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and Hearing
Impaired and Lee Nettles, director of the Stavros Center for Independent
Living in Springfield.
Netflix's lawyers at Morrison & Foerster did not respond to requests for
comment. Netflix spokesman Jonathan Friedland said the motion was
self-explanatory and declined to comment further.
Sheri Qualters can be contacted at
squalters@xxxxxxx
<javascript:location.href='mailto:'+String.fromCharCode(115,113,117,97,108,1
16,101,114,115,64,97,108,109,46,99,111,109)+'?'> .
Source:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202565125322&Netflix_seeks

Ardis Bazyn
For inspirational speaking, business coaching, writing, or books: 
www.bazyncommunications.com
Subscribe to my online newsletter 

_______________________________________________
Celebrating 75 years of serving the blind of California, we are the California 
Council of the Blind
_______________________________________________
CCB-L mailing list
CCB-L@xxxxxxxxxx
http://ccbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ccb-l

Robert Acosta, President
Helping Hands for the Blind
Email: boacosta@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web Site: www.helpinghands4theblind.org

You can assist Helping Hands for the Blind by donating your used computers to 
us. If you have a blind friend in need of a computer, please mail us at the 
above address.

[accesscomp] net Flick and the ADA

Other related posts: