Langer v. Interval International, Inc.

Background

Chris Langer sued Interval International, Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Langer alleged that he has partial hearing loss and needs closed captioning to understand all the content in internet media, including movies and tutorial videos. He alleged that he visited Interval’s website in February 2021 to find information about Interval’s services and discovered that video content lacked closed captioning.

Langer further alleged that Interval’s website provided information about membership and stays at Interval’s physical locations, was intended to induce customers to use those locations, and allowed users to schedule appointments through the website.

Arguments on the Motion

Interval moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Interval argued that Langer had not alleged that it operated a public accommodation covered by the ADA or Unruh Act because there was no connection between the website and a physical location. It also argued that its service was exempt under the ADA’s private-membership-club exception. Based on the alleged lack of a physical connection, Interval argued that Langer also lacked standing because he did not allege an intent to visit or return to a physical public accommodation.

Interval asked the court to consider the contents of its website, arguing that the website showed it did not own or operate a physical location and that timeshare accommodations available through the website could be booked only by members. The court noted that Interval had not filed a request for judicial notice, supplied screenshots or quotations, or shown that the website’s current version was the same version Langer visited in February 2021.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation. It stated that an ADA Title III claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability covered by the ADA, that the defendant is a private entity owning, leasing, or operating a place of public accommodation, and that the plaintiff was denied public accommodation because of the disability.

The court cited Ninth Circuit authority holding that Title III can apply to websites connected to public accommodations, such as restaurants and lodging facilities, when the websites connect customers to services provided at physical locations. It also noted that the Unruh Act claim was based on the alleged ADA Title III violation.

The court declined to treat Interval’s unspecified website statements as establishing the truth of facts contrary to the complaint. It stated that the circumstances allowing a court to consider material outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion are limited, and that the court could not take judicial notice of the truth of statements on Interval’s website or use those statements to dismiss a complaint alleging contrary facts.

Disposition

The court DENIED the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It ordered Interval to file its answer by July 20, 2021, vacated the hearing, and set a case-management conference for August 30, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom. The order terminated Docket No. 15.