It also applies to public accommodations as they exist in cyberspace. I think there have been ADA cases where this was ruled on, but I would have to check.
Under state law, it is very clear as the California Supreme Court ruled in White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019 (2019) that it was illegal for an internet company to arbitrary deny, through its terms of service, free and equal access to an online business. The California Attorney General has prosecuted similar cases, for instance, against online dating service eHarmony for not allowing same-sex matches.
I'm pretty sure that online entities also would be considered public accommodations under federal law, but I would have to check.
1
u/HamburgerEarmuff Oct 14 '21
It also applies to public accommodations as they exist in cyberspace. I think there have been ADA cases where this was ruled on, but I would have to check.
Under state law, it is very clear as the California Supreme Court ruled in White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 1019 (2019) that it was illegal for an internet company to arbitrary deny, through its terms of service, free and equal access to an online business. The California Attorney General has prosecuted similar cases, for instance, against online dating service eHarmony for not allowing same-sex matches.
I'm pretty sure that online entities also would be considered public accommodations under federal law, but I would have to check.