Robles v Domino's Pizza: The Case That Made Ecommerce Accessibility a Federal Liability

Robles v Domino's Pizza, LLC is the single most-cited case in modern ADA Title III website-accessibility litigation. Every plaintiff complaint against an ecommerce site references it. Every defense brief responds to it. Six years on, the Ninth Circuit's 2019 ruling and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari are still the federal-court foundation that says: the ADA reaches commercial websites and apps that connect customers to goods and services.

The facts

Guillermo Robles is blind and uses screen-reader software (specifically JAWS, the most-installed Windows screen reader) to navigate the web. In 2016 he attempted to order a customized pizza from Domino's through both the company's website (dominos.com) and its iOS mobile app. He could not complete either transaction because key interactive elements — the customization controls, the cart, the checkout flow — were not exposed to assistive technology.

Robles filed suit in the Central District of California alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the state-law counterpart that provides for $4,000 statutory damages per visit for the violation.

The arguments

Domino's moved to dismiss on two main theories:

1. Lack of fair notice / due process. Domino's argued that without specific Department of Justice regulations explaining what websites must do to comply with Title III, businesses had no fair warning of what was required. Imposing liability would violate due process.

2. The "primary jurisdiction doctrine". Domino's asked the court to stay the case until the DOJ issued regulations, on the theory that the agency had primary jurisdiction over the technical question.

The trial court agreed with Domino's and dismissed. Robles appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ruling

The Ninth Circuit reversed. Its core reasoning:

1. Statutory coverage is broad. The ADA itself is the source of the legal duty. The statute prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by "any place of public accommodation". Domino's restaurants are unquestionably places of public accommodation; the website and app connect customers to those restaurants; the ADA reaches that connection.

2. The lack of regulations is not a fair-notice problem. "The Constitution only requires that Domino's receive fair notice of its legal duties, not a blueprint for compliance." Domino's had been on notice that the ADA covers website-accessibility issues since at least the DOJ's 1996 guidance and a long line of district-court cases.

3. WCAG is a reasonable benchmark. While the court did not endorse WCAG 2.0 Level AA as the exclusive technical standard, it noted that the standard "provides a yardstick" and that Domino's could comply by reaching that level.

4. No primary-jurisdiction stay. The court declined to wait for DOJ regulations. The legal duty exists in the statute itself; the absence of further rulemaking does not strip courts of authority to enforce it.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari on 7 October 2019. The denial was not a ruling on the merits, but it left the Ninth Circuit's decision in place across the western United States — and signaled to other circuits that the Supreme Court was not inclined to revisit the underlying premise.

What changed after Robles

The immediate effect: ADA Title III website-accessibility lawsuit filings accelerated. Plaintiff law firms now had a clean appellate-court ruling to cite. The 2018-2025 lawsuit-volume curve — climbing from approximately 800 cases per year in 2018 to over 5,100 in 2025 — is in significant part a Robles effect.

Domino's itself eventually settled with Robles in 2022 and undertook substantial accessibility remediation. The technical work — restructuring its website and app for screen-reader compatibility — was, the company has implied, less expensive than continuing the litigation.

What Robles means for Shopify merchants

The legal posture for any commercial website in the United States, post-Robles, is:

1. The ADA applies. Your Shopify store is a commercial website connecting customers to goods and services. The ADA reaches it.
2. WCAG is the reference standard. Courts treat WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 Level AA as the operative benchmark even though the DOJ has not issued binding Title III web regulations.
3. The "we are a small business" defense does not exist. ADA Title III applies to every place of public accommodation regardless of size. Small businesses are over-represented in Title III lawsuit dockets because they are likely to settle.
4. The "no clear regulations" defense was rejected. The Ninth Circuit specifically held that the lack of regulations is not a get-out-of-liability excuse.
5. Active remediation is the operative defense. Settlements (and successful summary-judgment defenses) hinge on whether the merchant can document a good-faith remediation effort. AccessComply's scan-history + fix-record + accessibility-statement is precisely that record.

Further reading

• Robles v Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019) — full opinion
• Supreme Court order denying certiorari — Domino's Pizza v Robles, 140 S. Ct. 122 (2019)
• DOJ web accessibility guidance
• AccessComply: ADA Lawsuits Against Ecommerce Stores
• AccessComply: How to respond to an ADA demand letter
• AccessComply: Shopify accessibility complete guide