It just annoys me because I’m not going to order it and I’m abstaining from alcohol. But there’s always some “special deals” being advertised by UberEats on alcohol, as well as meat, dairy and eggs. It’s like they’re really sleazy and desperate to hawk these products.
No, but it’s been interpreted in relevant cases already, the courts told Domino’s that their website needed to be screen reader accessible because of the ADA. That was in 2019 though.
You’re still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn’t unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino’s horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn’t be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time…
So the law does cover usability of websites, and Uber/Doordash/whatever should at least put toggles in the settings to disable certain classes of advertisement manually so that recovering alcoholics can use their service without risk of exacerbating their disability. Good show.
Advertising isn’t covered by the ADA. That’s the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don’t have to. Just like liquor stores don’t have to hide their advertising. You’ve also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you’ve presented is not covered by them. Websites aren’t required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.
But usability is. I’m certain that you understand that Courts interpret laws when judging the merits of a suit, so you must also know that tendency is to hew to the “spirit” of the law rather than adhering strictly to the text. An actual lawsuit would involve therapists and psychologists giving expert opinions on what effect it might have on a person’s recovery if they are offered alcohol with every order, and I am assuming they’d say that kind of exposure would be harmful.
I thought you might bring up websites. Nobody is talking about making websites that display goods illegal, any more than having them on the shelves should be illegal. This is not equivalent to displaying goods. This is equivalent to the cashier asking if you want to booze-erize your groceries today at checkout, as a store policy.
A Court may well find it reasonable that having no ability to turn off these ads would set back recovery and effectively prevent a person suffering alcoholism from using the service, while people who do not suffer the disability can use it with no problem. Mandating a toggle for certain kinds of advertisement like alcohol would not be an undue burden (though from a technical perspective, it would probably be easier to just have the toggle disable the checkout offers altogether and that would probably be good enough in the eyes of the Court).
In my view it would fall under “Denial of Participation” (emphasis mine):
https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/#section41
A Court may well agree with that interpretation after hearing testimony to that effect from expert witnesses; I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dried an issue as you imply above.