It just annoys me because I’m not going to order it and I’m abstaining from alcohol. But there’s always some “special deals” being advertised by UberEats on alcohol, as well as meat, dairy and eggs. It’s like they’re really sleazy and desperate to hawk these products.
Good starting place for an ADA class action lawsuit.
Addiction is covered.
US regulatory institutions lack teeth these last 40 years. They’re the agency that should castrate such an issue, IMO.
You’re disabled with addiction tendencies? Okay, not lawful to feed you adverts for your addictions.
Why is this not the case? Is our government disinterested in our welfare?
The moment that’s true, we should be lighting our tax funded institutions on fire. Straight up. We paid for that shit. And the folks handling that money are doing fuck all to support our generosity.
Edit: people in here mistaking “good starting place for” with “A fucking slam dunk grand slam for,” But that’s cool, y’all do you.
The ADA doesn’t have anything to do with marketing/advertising. Yes, people struggling with addiction are a protected class. How does that apply here?
Can we sue people who make Souls games because they’re too hard for people with one hand? of course not. Should trivia games be banned because some people have intellectual disabilities? Can you ban my advertisement for my trivia night because of that? No. The ADA isn’t that wide
Yes that’s true. That specifically why I said what I said.
It’s a good starting place. For a class action lawsuit.
It’s not a slam dunk, but it’s a good starting place. And the ADA is an agency that could facilitate such an endeavor.
How do you think sidewalks become mandated to have handicap accessible ramps at all crosswalks?
The ADA is a law, not an agency. And the law mandated those ramps. It’s all in the law, which hasn’t been updated since it was written 30 years ago
No, but it’s been interpreted in relevant cases already, the courts told Domino’s that their website needed to be screen reader accessible because of the ADA. That was in 2019 though.
You’re still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn’t unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino’s horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn’t be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time…
So the law does cover usability of websites, and Uber/Doordash/whatever should at least put toggles in the settings to disable certain classes of advertisement manually so that recovering alcoholics can use their service without risk of exacerbating their disability. Good show.
Advertising isn’t covered by the ADA. That’s the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don’t have to. Just like liquor stores don’t have to hide their advertising. You’ve also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you’ve presented is not covered by them. Websites aren’t required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.
But usability is. I’m certain that you understand that Courts interpret laws when judging the merits of a suit, so you must also know that tendency is to hew to the “spirit” of the law rather than adhering strictly to the text. An actual lawsuit would involve therapists and psychologists giving expert opinions on what effect it might have on a person’s recovery if they are offered alcohol with every order, and I am assuming they’d say that kind of exposure would be harmful.
I thought you might bring up websites. Nobody is talking about making websites that display goods illegal, any more than having them on the shelves should be illegal. This is not equivalent to displaying goods. This is equivalent to the cashier asking if you want to booze-erize your groceries today at checkout, as a store policy.
A Court may well find it reasonable that having no ability to turn off these ads would set back recovery and effectively prevent a person suffering alcoholism from using the service, while people who do not suffer the disability can use it with no problem. Mandating a toggle for certain kinds of advertisement like alcohol would not be an undue burden (though from a technical perspective, it would probably be easier to just have the toggle disable the checkout offers altogether and that would probably be good enough in the eyes of the Court).
In my view it would fall under “Denial of Participation” (emphasis mine):
https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/#section41
A Court may well agree with that interpretation after hearing testimony to that effect from expert witnesses; I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dried an issue as you imply above.
The ADA covers usability and accessibility of publicly-accessible spaces (even those that are privately-owned) by people with disabilities, it’s why wheelchair ramps and accessible parking spaces aren’t optional.
Courts have historically not cared much if it’s an established legal precedent “but on the internet” - just being online doesn’t mean it’s not covered by existing law (it might not be, but only if being online makes substantial enough difference). If someone with a disability like addiction can’t use a publicly-accessible service (even if it’s privately-owned) because the operators of that service aren’t providing required accommodation for their disability, that could be argued quite convincingly to fall squarely under the ADA’s authority.
It could also be argued that it’s discriminatory to show known alcoholics booze ads, like a department store putting the wheelchair access ramp in the loading bay in the back of the building or blocking accessible parking spots with shopping carts.
For a practical example, if the customers at a grocery block all the accessible spots with carts, someone who needs one could sue the grocery for not keeping the spots clear. Their argument would be that while the grocery didn’t put the carts there, they also failed to keep any accessible spots clear of obstruction as they are required to. Deliberately advertising booze to alcoholics would be like video evidence of the grocery employees putting the carts in the accessible spots, it could lead to hefty punitive damages or fines as well.
Edit: Please take note of the word “deliberately” above. For a sure cash judgement with punitive components, the plaintiffs would have to show that the advertising was based on data showing the person has a drinking problem; for a win that would just get things changed, the argument would be there should be toggles to manually disable certain classes of advertisement.
Oi vey 🙄. The first step is not a lawsuit. Uber probably don’t even know they’re doing this as they will create marketing campaigns at a high level to target a mass audience rather than specifically trying to offend you. That’s just not how these campaigns work.
A good starting point would be to reach out to their customer team and highlight the issue and see if they can figure out a solution.
What’s with the straight to the courts ambulance chasing mentality people have rather than trying to reach out and find a solution?
Large corporate entities like Uber don’t listen until it significantly affects their bottom line. A program to allow customers to tailor advertisements would involve many thousands of dollars to implement and maintain, and the net result would be less customer engagement with their marketing programs.
The math just doesn’t add up until Uber faces a significant cost for not implementing it.
This sounds like you’ve never worked in the industry or have any insight into this topic. Large companies like Uber absolutely do listen to customer feedback. And if you want it to hit their bottom line you can protest the use of their app until they change, make it a hash tag on social media and drive change by voting with your feet. You don’t need to whip out the lawyers. Lord above, not everything needs to be solved with litigation.
We’re not talking about tailoring advertising. OP stated these are recommendations based on the what he is buying at the time. These are offers. Have you never seen a two for one aisle at your local supermarket? Or special offers on alcohol? It’s not a random advert popping up asking them to buy stuff whilst booking a cab. At the simplest level we’re talking about a setting that says, don’t upsell or market me alcohol (because I may be recovering) or meat (because I may be vegan). That would actually be a selling point for their app and something they could put a positive spin on.
I genuinely think you don’t understand the problem space here by what your saying or the solutions you’re offering.
That’s advertising.
That’s targeted advertisement.
Businesses only listen to customers when it positively affects their bottom line, or when they are forced to do so by regulators.
It’s really not, mate. Do you think buy one get one free is advertising? Or we have an offer on alcohol today? Or 50% off all cheese?
You don’t have a clue.
Yes.
Yes, all of those are advertising.
Communicated offers to exchange goods are advertisements.
Well feel free to waste money on a lawsuit as OP suggested because you’ll fail so hard it’ll be funny. Then the courts can tell you it isn’t covered by advertising laws and you’ll finally learn.
I look forward to reading your court submission.
The cost for them to defend themselves will exceed the cost for them to implement an ADA compliant solution.
Uber doesn’t even care and straight up steals from you if there’s missing food in your order. I doubt minimum wage support employee #7608 is going to care or even have the ability to pass on that information.