Gil v Winn-Dixie: The Eleventh Circuit Reversal That Reshaped ADA Web-Accessibility Liability

Gil v Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. is the most-cited ADA Title III website-accessibility case after Robles, and the most-cited case running the other direction. The original 2017 trial-court verdict for the plaintiff was the first time a federal court had found liability for an inaccessible website at trial. The Eleventh Circuit's 2021 reversal is the first appellate ruling holding that ADA Title III is limited to physical places of public accommodation, not websites themselves.

The legal landscape for Shopify merchants does not flip with Gil — but understanding what it does and does not say is essential when reading defense filings and circuit-by-circuit risk assessments.

The facts

Juan Carlos Gil is a Cuban-American Florida resident who has cerebral palsy and is legally blind. He uses screen-reader software (JAWS) to navigate the web. In 2016 he sued Winn-Dixie, a large grocery-store chain operating physical stores throughout the southeastern United States, alleging that winndixie.com was inaccessible to him as a screen-reader user.

Specifically, Gil alleged he could not use the website to:

• Refill his prescriptions for in-store pickup.
• Access the digital coupons that were available only on the website.
• Find store locations and hours in a screen-reader-accessible format.

Gil could not complete those tasks at the website level, so he could not access services that were available only through the website — even though Winn-Dixie's physical stores were accessible.

The 2017 trial-court verdict

The case went to a bench trial in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Robert Scola Jr. ruled for Gil. The court ordered Winn-Dixie to:

• Make its website conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA.
• Implement an accessibility-policy training program for its web developers and content vendors.
• Set up ongoing testing and a feedback mechanism for users with disabilities.

The verdict was widely cited in plaintiff complaints over the following four years as evidence that ADA Title III liability for inaccessible websites was a real and substantial risk. Settlement amounts in unrelated demand-letter cases climbed.

The 2021 Eleventh Circuit reversal

Winn-Dixie appealed. In April 2021 the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district-court judgment.

The Eleventh Circuit's reasoning rested on textual interpretation of ADA Title III's statutory definition of "place of public accommodation". The list in the statute (12 enumerated categories) consists entirely of physical locations: "an inn, hotel, motel," "a restaurant," "a hardware store," etc. Reading the list as the legislature wrote it, the court concluded that "place" means a physical place — and a website is not a physical place.

The court further held that the website was not a "service" of Winn-Dixie's physical stores in the relevant sense, because the website itself was not the conduit for accessing the in-store goods and services in a way that would make its inaccessibility a denial of equal access to those goods and services.

The court was careful to note that:

• The ruling was an interpretation of the statutory text, not a policy preference. Congress could amend the ADA to explicitly reach websites at any time.
• The ruling did not foreclose all ADA web-accessibility theories — only the theory that the website itself is a place of public accommodation. Plaintiffs could still bring claims under other theories where the website is a barrier to accessing physical-location goods or services.
• The ruling did not affect state-law claims (e.g. the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, where Robles also brought claims) which are independent of ADA Title III.

How the circuit split looks today

Plaintiffs continue to file ADA web-accessibility cases in the Eleventh Circuit, particularly when they can plead a nexus between the website inaccessibility and access to a physical store's goods or services. The Eleventh Circuit ruling raises the pleading bar but does not foreclose the theory.

What Gil means for Shopify merchants

If your Shopify store does not have a corresponding physical location, the Eleventh Circuit's narrow theory does not protect you in any case where the plaintiff can plead under a different theory. Even if you operate exclusively in the Eleventh Circuit:

1. State law is unaffected. California Unruh, NY Human Rights Law, Florida's state consumer protection statutes, and other state-law theories all proceed independently of ADA Title III. Plaintiffs frequently bundle ADA and state-law claims.
2. The EAA is unaffected. If you sell to EU customers, the European Accessibility Act applies regardless of the federal-circuit split.
3. Plaintiff law firms still file in the Eleventh Circuit. They plead the nexus theory rather than the place-of-public-accommodation theory. Your defense costs are similar; only the legal-theory framing changes.
4. The remediation work is identical. A Shopify store accessible to screen readers under any theory is also accessible under every other theory.

What about the Winn-Dixie bankruptcy?

Winn-Dixie's parent company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 2022, mooting the case. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling stands as binding precedent in that circuit, but Winn-Dixie itself never had to comply with the trial court's injunction. Whether the case would have been re-litigated under a nexus theory if Winn-Dixie had remained solvent is now a hypothetical.

Further reading

• Gil v Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021) — full opinion
• Andrews v Blick Art Materials, LLC — Eastern District of New York website-as-place-of-public-accommodation ruling (2017)
• AccessComply: Robles v Domino's deep-dive
• AccessComply: ADA lawsuits against ecommerce stores
• AccessComply: How to respond to an ADA demand letter