Supreme Court: "No 'Blind Shopping' for the Visually Impaired... Platforms Must Provide Alternative Text"

If there is no 'alternative text' for visually impaired users in product images registered on online shopping malls, the Supreme Court has issued a final ruling that the platform operator must directly take corrective action against discrimination, even if the products are uploaded by individual sellers.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

원본보기 아이콘

According to the legal community on April 13, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Sugyeon) upheld the appellate court's ruling in a lawsuit filed by visually impaired individuals against Gmarket, in which the plaintiffs demanded compensation for damages and corrective measures for discrimination, affirming the lower court's order for active corrective measures.

The visually impaired plaintiffs filed the lawsuit seeking compensation (damages) and corrective action, arguing that they could not sufficiently access product information using 'screen readers'-information and communication assistive devices for the visually impaired-because alternative text was not properly provided for non-text content (such as product images) on the Gmarket website.

The key issue in the trial was whether Gmarket, as the platform operator, is obligated to provide 'reasonable accommodations' under Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, even for product information registered directly by individual sellers.

In response, Gmarket argued that "since product information is registered by individual sellers, the platform operator bears no responsibility, and mandating accessibility measures would impose an undue burden on the operator."

However, both the first and second instance courts determined that Gmarket was indeed responsible. They found that Gmarket's failure to appropriately provide alternative text constituted 'indirect discrimination' as defined in Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, as it resulted in unfavorable outcomes for persons with disabilities. Furthermore, since Gmarket is the entity distributing electronic information through its website, the courts made clear that the platform operator bears the legal duty to provide 'reasonable accommodations' even for information registered by individual sellers.

Accordingly, the court ordered Gmarket to take active measures to "provide alternative text that can be accessed via screen readers within six months from the date the judgment becomes final." However, the court dismissed the claim for compensation (damages), stating that it was difficult to conclude Gmarket acted intentionally or negligently in failing to provide alternative text.

The Supreme Court also rejected both Gmarket's and the plaintiffs' appeals, stating, "The appellate court's decision did not misinterpret the legal principles regarding discriminatory acts and the obligations of business operators under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.