This month was slow so I decided to have some fun kicking the tires of Lexis+ AI—the new AI version of Lexis. The results were “interesting” but leaves me convinced that lawyers are not in any danger of being replaced anytime (too) soon.
The Legal Challenge: Murphy v. Rolex Watch
One of the only cases to come out this month was Murphy v. Rolex Watch USA, Inc, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126158 (W.D. Pa. July 17, 2024). I blogged about this case briefly back in May. That blog post discussed Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo’s recommendation to dismiss the cases and, this month, District Judge Susan Baxter for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted his recommendation.
The facts of the case are straightforward. Rolex is a Swiss corporation that sells watches through affiliated jewelers throughout the United States. Rolex advertises its watches on its website and includes a “store locator” feature that lets customers find a specific store that sells the exact watch they want. The interesting part is the store locator feature.
A Store Locator May Be Enough for Personal Jurisdiction
We’ve talked about personal jurisdiction a number of times. It requires that a defendant have a sufficient “presence” in the geographic territory of the court to enable the court to have jurisdiction over their person (hence the name). Usually, courts look to the volume of sales in a specific area or whether the defendant targeted marketing campaigns in a specific area.
According to Judge Baxter, having a store locator that points to retailers in a district is enough to create personal jurisdiction. I was a little surprised by that holding as it seems like a really low bar.
But a Store Locator May Not Be Enough to Create a Nexus
Websites confuse judges in the Western District of Pennsylvania. On the one hand, he was the plaintiff in both Douglass v. Blendjet, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171718 (W.D. Pa. 2022) and Douglass v. 360 Sweater Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171709 (W.D. Pa. 2022) and, in both cases, the court concluded that websites can be places of public accommodation. More recent opinions from the Western District, however, seem to return it to requiring a nexus between a website and a bricks and mortar physical establishment. Murphy v. Spongelle LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12340 (W.D. Pa. 2024).
Here is where the wheels fell off the cart for Mr. Murphy. While a store locator may be enough to create personal jurisdiction, a store locator apparently is not enough to create a nexus between Rolex’s website and the bricks and mortar physical retailers.
We’ve talked about store locators on this blog many times and how courts differed over whether they were enough to create a nexus. And, while I’ve never been a fan of the nexus approach, this is one of the few instances where its application may actually make sense because the physical retailers here are independent jewelers and are not otherwise associated with Rolex.
What Does AI Have to Say About All of This?
Now for the fun part! Lexis+ AI was described to me as a large language model AI system built entirely on the vast Lexis legal library. This meant that it was far less likely to hallucinate and come up with non-sensical responses.
When Lexis+ AI reported the decision, it came up with an AI Summary that looked like this…
Key Legal Holdings
Rolex SA's website has sufficient interactivity through its "Store locator" function to support specific personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff failed to allege a nexus between a physical place of public accommodation owned, operated, or leased by Rolex SA and the website services he claims are inaccessible.
Material Facts
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims Rolex SA's website is not fully compatible with screen reader software.
Rolex SA's website has a "Store locator" allowing users to find retailers of Rolex watches within a geographic area.
The website allows users to configure a specific watch model before locating retailers.
Rolex SA places cookies on the computers of Pennsylvania website visitors.
Controlling Law
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.
Court Rationale
The court found the "Store locator" function serves as advertising to direct users to Pennsylvania retailers to buy Rolex products. This commercial activity within the state supports personal jurisdiction over Rolex SA.
The court found no nexus between an inaccessible website and a physical public accommodation as required by Third Circuit precedent in Ford, Menkowitz, and Peoples.
Procedural Outcome
The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint.
“Not too shabby,” I thought, “let’s try something a little tougher.” So I asked it,
“Does a store locator feature create a sufficient nexus in web accessibility cases?”
Then, Lexis+ AI confidently answered with,
Yes, a store locator feature on a website can create a sufficient nexus to physical stores for web accessibility cases under the ADA.
Several cases have established that a store locator feature on a website can demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the website and the physical stores. For instance, in Brooks v. Lovisa Am., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102641, the court found that the inability to use the store locator feature on the website deprived the plaintiff of full and equal enjoyment of the services available to sighted people, thus establishing a sufficient nexus between the website and the physical locations Brooks v. Lovisa Am., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102641. Similarly, in Mason v. Herbarium LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154878, the court held that the plaintiff's inability to find the locations and hours of operation of the defendant's stores due to website accessibility barriers was sufficient to establish the requisite nexus Mason v. Herbarium LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154878.
Additionally, in Castillo v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, 286 F. Supp. 3d 870, the court noted that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the inaccessible store locator feature, which deterred her from locating and visiting a physical store, were sufficient to state a claim under the ADA Castillo v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, 286 F. Supp. 3d 870. This aligns with the reasoning in Gomez v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1368, where the court found that a website heavily integrated with physical store locations and operating as a gateway to those locations is covered by the ADA Gomez v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1368.
In conclusion, the presence of a store locator feature on a website can indeed create a sufficient nexus to physical stores, thereby making the website subject to ADA requirements for accessibility. This is supported by multiple court decisions that have recognized the importance of such features in facilitating access to physical store locations for individuals with disabilities.
The problem? Lexis+ AI didn’t mention that there are just as many cases going in the opposite direction. Plus, it had no trouble finding all of those cases when I asked it,
“Please identify at least 10 cases where a store locator feature on a website was deemed insufficient to create a nexus to a place of public accommodation under the ADA”
And then Lexis+ AI came back with
- Brooks v. Lola & Soto Bus. Grp., Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37246
- Brooks v. Lovisa Am., LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171429
- Brooks v. See's Candies, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153158
- Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133433
- Castillo v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, 286 F. Supp. 3d 870
- Gomez v. Bang & Olufsen Am., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15457
- Gomez v. Alfano Bros., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79190
- Brooks v. Tapestry, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25767
- Gomez v. Wunderlich, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105179
- Haynes v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238420
Most of these cases conclude that a store locator alone is not enough to establish a nexus (however, cases like Gomez v. Wunderlich do not). It would have been nice if Lexis+ AI had noted this ambiguity up front.
What Does AI Think is Cool This Month?
I thought I’d ask Lexis+ AI a slightly different question—what it thought was new in web accessibility this month. Specifically, I asked,
“Have any decisions in the July 2024 affect web accessibility litigation under the ADA?”
Lexis surprised me by citing five new cases: Elliott v. Sim, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129150 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2024), Harrell v. G&I XI La Crosse Bus. Park LP, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125337 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2024), Boggs v. Rutland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125404 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2024), Harrell v. Flores, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128658 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2024).
All six cases focus on how Unruh cases can’t be easily removed to federal courts. This is an important issue for accessibility cases in California, including web accessibility cases. The problem? None of these are web accessibility cases!
Section 508 May Be Amended?
Late in the month, on July 24, Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), John Fetterman (D-PA), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) introduced the Section 508 Refresh Act, a new bill designed to strengthen Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and improve the accessibility of the Federal government's electronic and information technology. I searched for days to find this and, as of this weekend, I still can't find the actual text of the bill.
Celerbrate the ADA Anniversary with a New Regulation!!!
On the ADA's 34th Anniversary (July 26, 2024), Attorney General Merrick Garland signed a new final rule under Title II of the ADA for access to medical diagnostic equipment (MDE) for people with disabilities. MDE includes equipment like medical examination tables, weight scales, dental chairs, x-ray machines and mammography machines.
Accessible MDE is an important need in our country because it directly affects the quality of health care available to people with disabilities. The DOJ rule has been a long way in the making-- starting all the back in 2012 with a draft Access Board regulation!
As important as it is to have accessible MDE, I'm not exactly sure what the impact of this regulation will be. First, it's a Title II regulation so it only affects state and local governments. You shouldn't expect your private practice nutritionist to feel compelled to get accessible weight scales anytime soon. Second, as we mentioned back in May, HHS issued new Section 504 regulations-- and those regulations also covered accessible MDE. Because those HHS regulations cover just about every healthcare activity, Title II healthcare providers were already covered under the HHS regulations. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I see DOJ's new MDE regulation as just a way of making sure Title II and Section 504 are harmonized and that the new Title II MDE regulation won't add to the protections already available through the HHS regulattion.
Disclaimer
Nothing in this post should be interpreted as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship. It is offered for educational purposes only. You should always contact a qualified attorney in your area to discuss your legal rights and responsibilities.
Want to See More Content Like This?
Want the latest blog posts, videos, white papers, and announcements? Sign up for our mailing list and stay in the loop!
We're Here to Help When You're Ready
Take a deep breath. Then feel free to reach out to our team when you're ready to discuss your accessibility needs.
0 comments on “Legal Update: July 2024”