"Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive." Anaïs Nin

Need to change text size? Click one of these:
Small Medium Large Larger Largest

Want to read this post later? Send it to your Kindle reader:

Send to Kindle

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Judgment Against Netflix: What Does it Mean?

Before we go any further, let me extend a HUGE thank you for NAD for filing this lawsuit against Netflix on behalf of all of us who rely on captions for access to language.

Here is a wonderful signed and captioned video by NAD CEO Howard Rosenblum explaining what the precedence regarding the judgment ruling against Netflix means. I saw this posted on their website at http://www.nad.org/news/2012/6/what-does-recent-nad-vs-netflix-precedent-mean


  1. Do you think this wil open doors to other tv companies who don't provide subtitles, like True Movies for example?

    As you know I wrote to them, and mentioned it on my blog both what I said and received, and like another company I also targeted, their excuses came down to money.

    1. Good morning, Liz. I believe it will. Currently it's falling under the American's with Disabilities Act, hence, "American", but I think it will pertain to the UK as well. It's really sad that these companies and other like it believe money is more important than people.

  2. Please note that does *not* refer to any final judgment on the lawsuit. It refers *only* to Netflix’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the argument that the internet is not a place of public accommodation. The judge rejected the motion and let the suit go forward.

    Contrary to what Mr. Rosenblum said this does not, by itself, establish the precedent that the ADA applies to the internet (unfortunately) nor does it give any indication as to how the judge might rule after both sides have made their arguments.

    However, allowing the case to go forward is better than dismissal.


    1. Thank you, David for explaining this further.

      I had the understanding that it actually set the precedent and that it allowed the proceedings to go on to the next court. It is a step forward, I believe, and a step in the right direction.