Coca-Cola Freestyle Drink Dispenser Machines and the ADA

Coca Cola Freestyle Dispenser Machine

The Coca-Cola Freestyle drink dispenser machines have been cited in several lawsuits regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) non-compliance. Freestyle machines are self-service, automated machines that permit customers to choose from more than 100 Coca-Cola beverages by using a touch-screen interface.

According to a presentation by Seyfarth Shaw, “sight-impaired plaintiffs brought three separate class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Moe’s®, Walgreens®, and Five Guys®, because these entities all had inaccessible drink dispensers, the Coca-Cola Freestyle® machine. While the restaurants identified in the Moe’s® and Five Guys® cases were franchise systems, the plaintiffs did not name the franchisees as defendants. In both cases, plaintiffs alleged a nationwide policy against the franchisor for installing Coca-Cola Freestyle® machines at all restaurants.”

In Moe’s, the plaintiffs argued “because the [Coca-Cola] Freestyle machines lack ‘adaptive features, such as a screen reader with audio description[s] or tactile buttons used to control commands’ blind people are unable to use them independently.” Specifically, plaintiffs asserted that “they visited a single Moe’s restaurant with a guide dog, requested assistance with the [Coca-Cola] Freestyle machine after purchasing a soda, and were denied assistance by Moe’s employees.” Eventually, another customer assisted the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the complaint noting that “[p]laintiffs’ allegations hinge[d] on a single visit to a Moe’s restaurant, where they received assistance from a customer, not a restaurant employee. From that isolated incident, no reasonable inference can be drawn that Moe’s fails to train its employees to provide effective auxiliary aids and services.”

“Notably, the same plaintiffs in 2016 filed a class action lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporation and several franchisees alleging that the Coca-Cola Freestyle® machines are not accessible and that the restaurants failed to provide auxiliary assistance to them on multiple occasions. McDonald’s filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, however, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case presumably after receiving a payment.”

“Additionally, in Boher v. Five Guys Enterprises, LLC, a blind plaintiff visited a Five Guys® restaurant in San Marcos, California on at least two occasions. On both occasions, plaintiff paid for a fountain soda and was handed a cup to obtain a soda at the Coca-Cola Freestyle® machine. Although plaintiff was using a white cane, he was not offered, nor did he receive assistance in using the Coca-Cola Freestyle® machine, but instead he was forced to depend on his sighted companion to obtain the beverage. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment holding that an “auxiliary aid or service was required.” The court also found that Five Guys® “discriminated against [the] Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) because it did not offer a qualified reader to assist [the] Plaintiff to use the [Coca-Cola] Freestyle machine.” An interesting point to note is the court’s language that “even if an exception applied, for example, if [p]laintiff had expressly requested that his sighted companion assist him instead of [d]efendant’s employee, [d]efendant was still obligated to offer an appropriate auxiliary aid or service.”

42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) states, “…discrimination includes a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.”

SUMMARY: “The Coca-Cola Freestyle® cases are an important illustration that [entities] can face Title III liability when their [facilities] use electronic information technology that may be inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. In order to diminish potential liability faced by [entities], systems should consider ways to avoid these accessibility problems altogether, including designing machines with the visually-impaired in mind that contain voice-recognition software, tactile, or some other usable feature. [Employees should be trained to provide assistance to patrons who are disabled so they can use the technology in a way that is similar to how individuals who are not disabled use it.] Lastly, [entities] should also ensure that contracts and leases with vendors require that the vendors defend such suits, pay all fees, costs, and damages, and warranty that the equipment fully complies with all accessibility laws and regulations.”

………………………………………………………………………………

If you observe a facility or element that is not ADA compliant and you would like to know how to proceed, please see the link at What To Do When A Building Is Not ADA Compliant or Accessible.

ADA Inspections Nationwide, LLC, offers ADA/ABA/FHA accessibility compliance inspections for buildings and facilities, as applicable to the different laws, and expert witness services with respect to ADA/ABA/FHA laws for building owners, tenants and managers. Also, ADAIN offers consulting for home modifications as a CAPS consultant for people wishing to age in place in their homes. For a complete list of services please see ADAIN Services.

Thank you.