In 2017, Juan Carlos Gil, who is legally blind, filed a civil action against Winn-Dixie Stores seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Winn-Dixie’s alleged failure to maintain a website accessible to visually impaired customers in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The district court denied Winn-Dixie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the website was “heavily integrated with” and “operates as a gateway to” Winn-Dixie's physical store. Therefore, Mr. Gil could not use the website and was denied equal access to the services, privileges, and advantages of Winn-Dixie’s physical stores in violation of the ADA. The district court did not decide whether the website itself is a public accommodation. The district court held, however, that because Mr. Gil showed a sufficient “nexus” between the website and physical locations (known as the “nexus” standard), Winn-Dixie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.

After bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Mr. Gil holding that the website violated the ADA and ordered injunctive relief. Winn-Dixie appealed. In April 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision expressly declining to adopt a “nexus” standard. The Eleventh Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that “public accommodations” under Title III of the ADA are limited to actual, physical places and do not include websites.^[1]

The Eleventh Circuit subsequently granted Mr. Gil’s petition for panel rehearing en banc. On Dec. 28, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its earlier decision based on a technicality — that the injunction entered by the district court expired before the issuance of the decision, therefore, the matter was moot, thus the Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to issue the opinion.

That said, the Eleventh Circuit neither addressed its earlier holding that websites are not a place of public accommodation nor its rejection of the “nexus” standard. Therefore, its earlier reasoning for declining to adopt a “nexus” standard due to a lack of basis for it in the statute and in legal precedent remains instructive.

The Winn-Dixie case highlights the legal ambiguities of website accessibility claims and challenges businesses face in determining their legal obligations. Absent clear guidance on required standards, it is important for businesses to be aware of the uncertainties in litigation to best protect themselves.

^[1] The Eleventh Circuit further held that because Mr. Gil could enjoy the goods services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations of the physical stores despite the inaccessibility of the website, the absence of auxiliary aids was not an intangible barrier violating the ADA.