• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Registration agreement

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.


Hi. Have a quick question. I run a computer forum that's more or less just a project and a learning experience for web development. If people join all the better. I have read about a week ago that there's been a rash of people suing websites that weren't geared for the disabled. Since I don't feel like being sued I added the following to my registration terms.

By registering and/or accessing this website you also agree that this website is not designed for the disabled.

Not sure if that's all lawyer speak tight or not. But my main question is whether I should replace the word, "agree" to "understand."

What's say you?


Active Member
My understanding about public accommodation and disability laws does not include any phrase that removes liability. Otherwise all the myriad businesses that could be sued for physical deficiencies (no wheelchair access etc.) would just put up the sign:

"By entering this premises you agree/understand/acknowledge they are not designed for the disabled."

It would be a lot cheaper than building ramps.

But, there are a large number of problems in such suits against websites. Even the Department of Justice has withdrawn regulations they were to promulgate on how websites should deal with the issue. ( https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ce-of-withdrawal-of-four-previously-announced ) No one really knows. I suspect a quick line seeking to avoid liability isn't going to help at all. Only compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines seems to please the courts right now--if the lawsuit gets to that point.

I suspect that if you were ever sued, you would rely on what is "readily achievable".
Last edited:


Active Member
Anyone can sue but a private website does not have to be handicap-accessible.
You might define "private website" as the courts (When the plaintiff is successful.) are considering them public accommodations. There is currently a circuit split between the 9th, 7th and 1st circuits on the issue. I don't think the 5th has decided at the appellate level yet.


Senior Member
I deleted my post because it was incomplete and I didn't have time to complete it.

Applying Title II and Title III to websites has been problematic, as are the lawsuits that are being filed against these websites. Accessibility for one group can make a site inaccessible to others. To comply with ADA guidelines can be prohibitively expensive. Hence the rethinking of the government regulations regarding website accessibility.
Last edited:


Active Member
Accessibility for one group can make a site inaccessible to others. To comply with ADA guidelines can be prohibitively expensive.
I think the statute defines "readily achievable" as:
“easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”

How that is applied to specific facts depends on the court.


Senior Member
Right. It relieves websites of complying if to do so is unrealistic.

It unfortunately does not prevent lawsuits - but nothing can do that. If someone wants to sue, they will sue.
Sponsored Ad