this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
149 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43968 readers
1220 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The ADA doesn’t have anything to do with marketing/advertising. Yes, people struggling with addiction are a protected class. How does that apply here?
Can we sue people who make Souls games because they’re too hard for people with one hand? of course not. Should trivia games be banned because some people have intellectual disabilities? Can you ban my advertisement for my trivia night because of that? No. The ADA isn’t that wide
Yes that's true. That specifically why I said what I said.
It's a good starting place. For a class action lawsuit.
It's not a slam dunk, but it's a good starting place. And the ADA is an agency that could facilitate such an endeavor.
How do you think sidewalks become mandated to have handicap accessible ramps at all crosswalks?
The ADA is a law, not an agency. And the law mandated those ramps. It’s all in the law, which hasn’t been updated since it was written 30 years ago
No, but it's been interpreted in relevant cases already, the courts told Domino's that their website needed to be screen reader accessible because of the ADA. That was in 2019 though.
You're still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn't unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino's horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn't be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time...
So the law does cover usability of websites, and Uber/Doordash/whatever should at least put toggles in the settings to disable certain classes of advertisement manually so that recovering alcoholics can use their service without risk of exacerbating their disability. Good show.
Advertising isn't covered by the ADA. That's the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don't have to. Just like liquor stores don't have to hide their advertising. You've also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you've presented is not covered by them. Websites aren't required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.
But usability is. I'm certain that you understand that Courts interpret laws when judging the merits of a suit, so you must also know that tendency is to hew to the "spirit" of the law rather than adhering strictly to the text. An actual lawsuit would involve therapists and psychologists giving expert opinions on what effect it might have on a person's recovery if they are offered alcohol with every order, and I am assuming they'd say that kind of exposure would be harmful.
I thought you might bring up websites. Nobody is talking about making websites that display goods illegal, any more than having them on the shelves should be illegal. This is not equivalent to displaying goods. This is equivalent to the cashier asking if you want to booze-erize your groceries today at checkout, as a store policy.
A Court may well find it reasonable that having no ability to turn off these ads would set back recovery and effectively prevent a person suffering alcoholism from using the service, while people who do not suffer the disability can use it with no problem. Mandating a toggle for certain kinds of advertisement like alcohol would not be an undue burden (though from a technical perspective, it would probably be easier to just have the toggle disable the checkout offers altogether and that would probably be good enough in the eyes of the Court).
In my view it would fall under "Denial of Participation" (emphasis mine):
https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/#section41
A Court may well agree with that interpretation after hearing testimony to that effect from expert witnesses; I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as you imply above.
The ADA covers usability and accessibility of publicly-accessible spaces (even those that are privately-owned) by people with disabilities, it's why wheelchair ramps and accessible parking spaces aren't optional.
Courts have historically not cared much if it's an established legal precedent "but on the internet" - just being online doesn't mean it's not covered by existing law (it might not be, but only if being online makes substantial enough difference). If someone with a disability like addiction can't use a publicly-accessible service (even if it's privately-owned) because the operators of that service aren't providing required accommodation for their disability, that could be argued quite convincingly to fall squarely under the ADA's authority.
It could also be argued that it's discriminatory to show known alcoholics booze ads, like a department store putting the wheelchair access ramp in the loading bay in the back of the building or blocking accessible parking spots with shopping carts.
For a practical example, if the customers at a grocery block all the accessible spots with carts, someone who needs one could sue the grocery for not keeping the spots clear. Their argument would be that while the grocery didn't put the carts there, they also failed to keep any accessible spots clear of obstruction as they are required to. Deliberately advertising booze to alcoholics would be like video evidence of the grocery employees putting the carts in the accessible spots, it could lead to hefty punitive damages or fines as well.
Edit: Please take note of the word "deliberately" above. For a sure cash judgement with punitive components, the plaintiffs would have to show that the advertising was based on data showing the person has a drinking problem; for a win that would just get things changed, the argument would be there should be toggles to manually disable certain classes of advertisement.