Andrews v Blick Art Materials: The Ruling That Made Websites Themselves Places of Public Accommodation

Andrews v Blick Art Materials, LLC is the most-cited federal ruling holding that a website itself can be a "place of public accommodation" under ADA Title III, independent of any connected physical location. For Shopify stores without a brick-and-mortar presence, Andrews is the controlling theory in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont — and the doctrinal opposite of the Eleventh Circuit's 2021 ruling in Gil v Winn-Dixie.

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, writing in 2017, denied the motion to dismiss in a 38-page opinion that became the most-cited articulation of the broad reading of ADA Title III in the Second Circuit. The reasoning rested on three pillars:

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.

How Andrews and Gil compare

The federal circuit split between these two readings remains unresolved by the Supreme Court.

What Andrews means for Shopify merchants

If your Shopify store has no physical location and operates exclusively online:

1. In the Second Circuit (NY, VT, CT), the website is itself a place of public accommodation under ADA Title III. You face full ADA Title III exposure regardless of physical presence.
2. In the Eleventh Circuit (FL, GA, AL), the Gil ruling means ADA Title III does not directly reach a pure-online site. State-law claims (NY Human Rights Law, California Unruh, Florida state-law claims) still apply.
3. In the Ninth Circuit (CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA, etc), Robles v Domino's applies a broad nexus test. Pure-online stores have argued that without a physical place there is no nexus to test against, with mixed results.
4. In the unresolved circuits, plaintiff complaints typically plead under multiple theories simultaneously to maximize survival probability. The defense response varies with the home circuit.

For Shopify merchants the operational implication is the same regardless of circuit: remediate at the source-code level, document the remediation, and publish an accessibility statement. Active remediation is the operative defense across every theory.

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 Eleventh Circuit reversal
• AccessComply: NFB v Target — first major class-action settlement