The courts are split regarding whether Title IIIʼs definition of “public accommodations” is limited to physical spaces. Courts within the First, Second, and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have found that a website can be a place of public accommodation independent of any connection to a physical space. Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesalerʼs Assʼn of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994); Natʼl Assʼn of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D. Mass. 2012); Natʼl Fedʼn of the Blind v. Scribd Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 565, 576 (D. Vt. 2015); Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381, 393 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); Morgan v. Joint Admin. Bd., Ret. Plan of Pillsbury Co. & Am. Fedʼn of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO-CLC, 268 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2001); Doe v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557, 558 (7th Cir. 1999). The Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that places of public accommodation must be physical places, but that goods and services provided by a public accommodation (which may include through websites) may fall within the ADA if they have a sufficient nexus to a physical location. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2017); Haynes v. Dunkinʼ Donuts LLC, 2018 WL 3634720, at *2 (11th Cir. July 31, 2018); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000); Earll v. eBay, Inc., 599 F. Appʼx 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2015); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 614 (3d Cir. 1998); Peoples v. Discover Fin. Servs., Inc., 387 F. Appʼx 179, 183 (3d Cir. 2010); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1010 (6th Cir. 1997)).
The results have been mixed for defendants that chose to fight these cases, with courts commonly refusing to dismiss these cases except in limited
circumstances. Gil v. Winn Dixie, which went to a bench trial in June 2017, is the first ADA website accessibility case to go to trial, and the first in which a judge ordered a business to comply with a particular standard, the WCAG 2.0
guidelines. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that Winn Dixieʼs website was a place of public accommodation because it was largely integrated with its physical store locations, and noted that the website services identified by the plaintiff in his complaint were directly related to physical stores. The court held that Winn-Dixieʼs website violated the ADA because it was not sufficiently accessible to visually impaired customers, and issued injunctive relief stating that the website must conform to the criteria in WCAG 2.0, and that any third-party vendors who interact with Winn Dixieʼs website must also comply with WCAG 2.0.
Winn Dixie appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals, which held oral argument on October 4, 2018. Winn Dixie argued that: (1) websites are not places of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA; (2) the WCAG are not law and the trial courtʼs adoption of those guidelines violated due process; and (3) Winn Dixie is in compliance with the ADA because Gil had not been deprived of the full benefit of and equal access to the services and goods in Winn Dixieʼs stores. The Eleventh Circuit will likely issue its opinion in the first months of 2019, which can potentially, and significantly impact the landscape of website accessibility cases

within the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) by clarifying or definitively adopting a standard (e.g., the WCAG) under which courts will analyze whether a companyʼs website is ADA accessible.