Elizarraraz v. Sessions

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Netflix’s on-demand service website is a place of public accommodation even though its services are accessed exclusively in the home
• observing that “web-based services did not exist when the ADA was passed in 1990 and, thus, could not have been explicitly included in the Act”
• finding that question of the defendant’s power to provide captioning due to copyright issues was “not properly before the court” at the motion to dismiss stage but that the “issue may be revisited on a motion for summary judgment’
• \There is no indication that the CVAA ... extinguishes private rights of action under the ADA for closed captioning of video programming on the Internet.\
• “There is no indication that the CVAA . . . extinguishes private rights of action under the ADA for closed captioning of video programming on the Internet.”
• service for streaming movie and television programming

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).