The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) does not require video game manufacturer Sony Corporation (“Sony”) and its subsidiaries to make accommodations for disabled players, a California federal judge recently determined. See Stern v. Sony Corp., No. 09-cv-7710, slip op. at *4 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 8, 2010).

Plaintiff Alexander Stern filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming that multiple learning disabilities impaired his ability to process visual images. Stern alleged that these impairments prevented him from fully enjoying Sony video games because he was “unable to locate friends, characters and items across [Sony’s virtual and interactive] Gaming Platforms.” Stern also claimed that the manufacturer refused to make modifications that would have accommodated his disability. Stern suggested that Sony could have provided disabled gamers with auxiliary visual and auditory cues through a free software patch. The company’s failure to act, Stern alleged, violated Title III of the ADA.

Judge Percy Anderson found that Stern’s claims did not fall within the ambit of the ADA. The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination against the disabled in “places of public accommodation.” To qualify as a place of public accommodation under the ADA, the Ninth Circuit requires some connection between an actual, physical space and the goods or services about which a plaintiff complains. In this case, Stern failed to make out an ADA claim because he failed to connect Sony’s video games with an actual, physical space.

The court found that Sony, as a video game manufacturer and online service provider, gives the public access to its products, but does not provide places of public accommodation. The judge drew an analogy from an earlier case to illustrate the distinction between products, which are not regulated by Title III of the ADA, and places of public accommodation, which are so regulated. Judge Anderson noted that a bookstore may not discriminate against disabled people by failing to grant them access. That same bookshop, however, need not stock books that are written in Braille.

To hold Sony liable in this case, Judge Anderson stated, would create potential liability for any products manufacturer that did not also make product aids that accommodated all sorts of disabilities. The court dismissed Stern’s ADA claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s related state law claims.

This case represents just one of the many legal issues that may confront entertainment and media producers. It is prudent to seek legal counsel at all stages of the production process. To find out more about Arent Fox’s work in the media and entertainment fields, please contact:

Anthony V. Lupo
lupo.anthony@arentfox.com
202.857.6353

Grace L. Applefeld
applefeld.grace@arentfox.com
202.857.6498