Andrews v Blick Art Materials: A District-Court Online-Service Decision

Andrews v Blick Art Materials, LLC is a 2017 Eastern District of New York decision denying a motion to dismiss. The court accepted a broad Title III theory on the pleadings, but the decision is not controlling Second Circuit authority and should not be converted into a universal coverage rule for online-only Shopify stores.

The facts

Andrew Andrews is a blind New York resident who uses screen-reader software to navigate the web. In 2016 he attempted to access dickblick.com — the website of Blick Art Materials, LLC, a privately-held art-supply retailer. Blick operates physical stores in some cities and a nationwide ecommerce website. Andrews alleged that the website was inaccessible to screen-reader users in multiple ways, including missing alt text on product images, missing form labels on the cart and checkout flow, and inaccessible navigation.

Andrews sued in the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of:

• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (federal).
• The New York State Human Rights Law.
• The New York City Human Rights Law.

Blick moved to dismiss the ADA claim on the theory that ADA Title III is limited to physical places of public accommodation, and the website is not a physical place. (The same theory the Eleventh Circuit would adopt four years later in Gil v Winn-Dixie.)

The ruling

Judge Jack B. Weinstein denied the motion to dismiss in a 2017 opinion. The reasoning included three themes:

1. The ADA is a remedial statute that should be construed liberally

The court emphasized that the ADA was enacted to ensure equal access for people with disabilities. Construing "place of public accommodation" narrowly to exclude commerce conducted online — where an ever-growing share of public commerce occurs — would defeat the statute's remedial purpose.

2. The statutory list of categories is illustrative, not exhaustive

The 12 categories in 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) — "an inn, hotel, motel," "a restaurant," "a hardware store," etc. — are explicitly introduced with the language "[t]he following private entities are considered public accommodations". The court read this language as illustrative; the list provides examples of the kinds of entities covered, not an exhaustive enumeration.

3. Second Circuit precedent supports broad coverage

The Second Circuit had previously held in Pallozzi v Allstate (1999) that an insurance policy could be a "good or service" covered by Title III even though the policy was sold over the phone, not at a physical place. That reading — focusing on the goods and services, not the physical infrastructure — supported extending coverage to websites.

The court further held that even if the website were construed as merely connecting customers to Blick's physical stores, the inaccessibility violated ADA Title III under the more conservative nexus theory as well.

Do not use Andrews and the vacated Gil panel opinion as a two-case circuit map

Andrews is a district-court decision. The April 2021 Gil panel opinion was vacated as moot in December 2021. Current Title III coverage analysis must start with controlling appellate authority and the facts in the relevant jurisdiction, not a marketing table that assigns broad or narrow labels from these two matters.

What Andrews means for Shopify merchants

For Shopify merchants, the reliable operating advice is non-categorical:

1. Make product discovery, forms, cart, account, media, and checkout journeys usable by people with disabilities.
2. Test the current rendered storefront with automated and manual methods, including keyboard and assistive technology.
3. Keep accessibility statements and remediation records accurate about scope and remaining limitations.
4. Ask qualified counsel which federal, state, or international rules apply; neither a source-code change nor an AccessComply record creates a guaranteed legal defense.

Further reading

• Andrews v Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) — full opinion
• Pallozzi v Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999)
• 42 U.S.C. § 12181 — ADA Title III definitions
• AccessComply: Robles v Domino's deep-dive
• AccessComply: Gil v Winn-Dixie vacatur and procedural history
• AccessComply: NFB v Target — first major class-action settlement