Langer v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California

Background

Chris Langer alleged that he has substantial and permanent partial hearing loss and relies on subtitles and closed captioning when watching videos. He visited Pep Boys’ website in August 2020 to confirm that the business was open and to look for information about the company and its products. He alleged that the website’s videos lacked subtitles, including a video titled “Need help making an appointment,” and that this prevented him from fully understanding the videos and deterred him from further using the website.

Langer asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which addresses access to goods and services at places of public accommodation, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Pep Boys operates the website and physical locations in California. Langer filed an amended complaint, and Pep Boys moved to dismiss it under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Mootness

Pep Boys argued that the ADA claim was moot because, after Langer filed the case, it launched a new website, removed the specific video identified in the complaint, and represented that all videos on the website then had closed captioning. Langer did not dispute that the identified video had been removed, but argued that website changes were not permanent and that similar violations could occur when Pep Boys uploaded new content.

The court concluded that Pep Boys had not met its heavy burden of showing that the alleged lack of captioning could not reasonably happen again. The court explained that website features are not structural changes and may be changed or reintroduced more easily than physical barriers. It also found gaps in Pep Boys’ evidence: its declaration said the prior website was compliant even though the video Langer viewed lacked captions; it did not explain whether that was a one-time lapse; it did not identify how many other videos previously lacked captions; and Pep Boys did not provide expert evidence explaining the applicable website-accessibility standards. The court therefore did not dismiss the claim as moot.

Standing and Website Accessibility

For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, a plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. The court explained that an ADA plaintiff may do this by showing either that the alleged barrier deterred the plaintiff from returning or that the plaintiff suffered an injury and intends to return to a noncompliant facility.

The court stated that a website by itself is not a public accommodation under the applicable case law. A website may be covered when there is a connection, or “nexus,” between the website and a physical location. Examples include a website that prevents a person from ordering products or services from a physical location, or that prevents the person from locating or visiting physical stores.

The court found that Langer had not alleged that necessary connection. Although he alleged that he visited the website for information about Pep Boys and its products, was deterred from returning, and would return once the website became accessible, he did not allege that he intended to visit a Pep Boys physical location and could not do so because of the website’s inaccessibility. He also did not allege that he was trying to order goods or services from a physical location. Instead, his allegations treated the website videos themselves as the service he could not access. The court held that these allegations did not establish ADA standing because they did not connect the website barrier to a physical Pep Boys location.

Disposition

Because Langer failed to allege standing under the ADA, the court granted Pep Boys’ motion to dismiss. The court also granted Langer leave to amend because it did not appear that amendment would be futile. The court identified possible additional allegations concerning an attempt to access services connected with a physical Pep Boys location and an inability to do so. The amended complaint was due by January 29, 2021. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the Unruh Act claim beyond granting Pep Boys’ motion to dismiss.