Robles v Domino's Pizza: What the Ninth Circuit Actually Decided

Robles v Domino's Pizza, LLC is an important Ninth Circuit ADA Title III website-accessibility decision. Its holding was specific: Domino's website and app connected customers to goods and services at Domino's physical restaurants. The opinion expressly declined to decide whether the ADA covers every business website, so merchants should not turn it into a nationwide rule for all ecommerce models.

The facts

Guillermo Robles is blind and uses screen-reader software. In 2016 he attempted to order a customized pizza from Domino's through both the company's website and its iOS mobile app. His complaint alleged that accessibility barriers prevented him from completing the transaction.

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 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. The court did not make WCAG the exclusive legal standard. The requested injunction referenced WCAG 2.0, but the Ninth Circuit left the precise remedy for the trial court and did not hold that one WCAG version is the only way to satisfy Title III.

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. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits; it left the Ninth Circuit decision in place without adopting its reasoning nationwide.

What happened next

The case returned to the trial court after certiorari was denied and was later resolved. That procedural history does not prove a nationwide rule, a particular remediation cost, or a predictable outcome for another merchant.

What Robles means for Shopify merchants

Practical lessons for a Shopify accessibility program are narrower than the old legal extrapolation:

1. Test the connected customer journey. Product selection, store location information, ordering, cart, and checkout can be closely tied to goods or services offered at a physical location.
2. Do not wait for a perfect technical regulation before removing known barriers. Robles rejected Domino's due-process argument on the facts before the court.
3. Use WCAG as an engineering framework, not an automatic legal conclusion. Identify the exact version and evaluation scope, and combine automated checks with manual testing.
4. Get jurisdiction-specific advice. Circuit law, state statutes, business facts, physical nexus, and exemptions can materially change the analysis.
5. Keep factual records. A scan history, approved-change record, accessibility statement, and manual-test evidence can document work performed, but AccessComply does not create a legal defense or guarantee an outcome.

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