Articles and posts published in recent months in the field of accessibility have announced a supposedly significant change from a legal standpoint in the field. We will try to put some order into the subject, to check how accurate things are and whether they affect the way site owners should conduct themselves.
While the obligations concerning website accessibility are fairly well known, quite a few site owners and businesses are not are aware of their obligation to publish on the website the existing accessibility arrangements at the business physical of theirs – if one exists (and it receives the public).
The logic of imposing a duty to publish the accessibility accommodations that exist in the business itself, on the website, is clear: suppose, for example, that a person who uses a wheelchair intends to visit a particular café. It would be intolerable if, when arriving at the place itself, he discovers that he cannot spend time there because, for example, the entrance is not accessible, the restrooms are not accessible, or there is no suitable parking arrangement. Assuming the café has a website, had the accessibility arrangements been published on the site, there is a good chance that this person would have been spared the aggravation and the enormous waste of time.
From a legal standpoint, possibly due to a lack of attention on the part of the regulation drafters, unlike the arrangement that exists regarding website accessibility, not The relevant regulations [Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (Accessibility Adjustments for Service), 2013] impose an obligation explicit and specifically to give site owners an opportunity to fix things and publish the accessibility arrangements of the business itself, before against whom legal proceedings are taken.
Against this background, as we already warned years ago in an earlier blog post on the subject, a phenomenon has developed of serial, "duplicated", at times cynical approaches to businesses, with a "threat" of taking legal action (including filing a class action), for not publishing on their website the accessibility arrangements of their "physical" business. These approaches mostly ended in a "settlement" in which the business owner paid a "handsome" sum to settle the matter. A significant portion of those businesses are businesses small very small, which in practice accessible, and it is hard to point to real harm to a person with a disability – merely because the accessibility arrangements of the business itself were not published on its website. Most owners of such businesses, presumably, had they only received a warning about it, would have hurried to fix things and publish the accessibility arrangements, which were not published in the first place only out of lack of awareness.
Since, for practical, understandable reasons, most business owners who received such demands preferred to accede to the proposal to end the matter with a financial "settlement" and move on, the courts have not been given many opportunities to address the issue.
Things changed in January 2024 when, in the framework of a class action proceeding, the Tel Aviv District Court (Judge Oded Maor, Class Action 5621-07-23 Ben Or v. Aviv et al.) ruled that also with regard to publishing the business's accessibility arrangement on its website, Early contact for site owners is a solution Fair and proper, which would have led to correcting things. In the district court's view, this solution reflects, among other things, the duty of good faith and fairness. Similar to the criticism we voiced years ago, the court addressed the improper phenomenon of filing duplicate lawsuits against small businesses, where the circumstances of the filing, and the failure to give the defendants prior notice and an opportunity to correct, are unconvincing.
However, and although this ruling is welcome and important, one must not err and confuse the duty to publish accessibility arrangements, and the various accessibility duties, with the court's determination. The duty to publish on the website the accessibility arrangements existing at the business itself is valid, existing and important. Of course, the duty to make the website itself accessible, the duty to appoint an accessibility coordinator in certain cases, and of course the accessibility duty of the business itself – all of these are basic duties and should be treated with the utmost seriousness.
Moreover, even regarding the issue of prior notice before filing a lawsuit, it is worth remembering that this is a district court ruling, and other district courts (and certainly the Supreme Court) are not bound to rule in a similar way. In any case, the small details, the circumstances of the specific case that was heard before the court, and the various contexts are very important; a small change in circumstances may lead to different results.
In summary: in our opinion, the court did well to identify a phenomenon of abuse of legal proceedings and to intervene in it, but make no mistake: the publication obligation and the various accessibility obligations remain valid and in force, and should be treated accordingly.
This blog reflects the personal interpretation of the writer, and is intended for general information only, and as food for thought. It does not cover the requirements, rules and nuances of the topics mentioned in it, does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
