There’s probably no issue of regulation on which I’ve been sounding the alarm for a longer time than on web accessibility, as it’s called. (Examples here, here, here, here, and here, among many others.) Many disabled‐rights advocates believe it should be, or already is, a violation of federal law for a business or a professional practice to post content online that is not fully accessible. That means, e.g., fitted out with video captions and action descriptions, alternative text, or alternative navigation methods for the benefit of potential users who are blind, deaf, or lacking in the fine motor skills needed to control a mouse, to name but three user groups.

The issue has big implications. The University of California, Berkeley is among institutions that have taken down free course content rather than risk liability for keeping them up without what one or another user might find to be adequate usability. Even large companies struggle with expensive and unsettled accessibility standards, while smaller users — such as mom‐and‐pop businesses with bare‐bones websites — routinely fail to provide the demanded captioning and other fixes. Lawyers have filed cookie‐​cutter suits by the thousands charging all manner of businesses with lack of online accessibility, from hotel and airline reservation systems on down, and have regularly demanded thousands of dollars to drop a suit and go away. Internet law authority Eric Goldman put it bluntly nine years ago: “If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose.”