Gomez v. Trinitas Cellars, LLC

Background

Andres Gomez alleged that Trinitas Cellars, LLC’s winery website was inaccessible to him because he is visually impaired, legally blind, and uses screen-reader software. He said he visited the website in March and August 2021 to obtain information about the winery and decided not to visit because of alleged accessibility barriers. He also alleged that he would return to the website once it became accessible.

Gomez identified three categories of alleged barriers: images without text equivalents readable by screen-reader software; script elements without readable functional text, including items under the “Wines,” “Visit Us,” and “Contact Us” links; and insufficient contrast between webpage backgrounds and foreground text. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Motion and legal standard

Trinitas initially moved to dismiss, arguing that the website complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act and that Gomez lacked standing. Because Trinitas submitted evidence outside the pleadings, Judge Orrick converted the motion into one for summary judgment and gave Gomez an opportunity to submit evidence and supplemental briefing.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed reasonable factual inferences in favor of Gomez, the opposing party, but explained that unsupported or speculative assertions could not create a genuine dispute for trial.

Analysis

The court considered the merits of the website-accessibility allegations and the related standing issues together because they involved the same facts. The court explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act can require public accommodations to provide auxiliary aids and services, including website features that make visual materials available to people who are blind, when there is a connection between the website and a physical public accommodation.

For the images, the parties’ experts agreed that the winery logo and social-media logos were not properly readable by screen-reader software. The court held that these defects did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act or establish a concrete injury because Gomez did not show how they affected his ability to access the winery’s location or services. The court also found that Trinitas’s evidence showed that the main menu was fully accessible through screen-reader software, and Gomez did not present evidence disputing that conclusion.

For the script elements, the court found that the evidence showed the identified Wine Society links and menu items under “Wines,” “Visit Us,” and “Contact Us” were readable by screen-reader software. Gomez did not attempt to rebut that evidence in his opposition, supplemental brief, or expert report.

For the alleged low contrast, Trinitas’s expert explained that contrast does not prevent screen-reader software from reading text because the software reads the text regardless of its color or the background color. The court found that the video evidence supported this explanation and that Gomez did not dispute it. His argument that he used his remaining sight to click around the screen was unsupported attorney argument, and the court found that the evidence showed the screen reader could move through and read the webpage without clicking each individual element.

Unruh Act claim and disposition

Gomez did not dispute that the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim failed if the Americans with Disabilities Act claim failed on the grounds identified by the court. The court therefore entered summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim as well.

The court’s conclusion states that the motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. Judgment was to be entered accordingly, and Gomez was ordered to bear the costs of the suit. The opinion does not state that the judgment was entered with or without prejudice.