This July, we celebrated the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), prompting a critical question: Is it still relevant, or must we improve this outdated legislation? Title III of the ADA says businesses and places of “public accommodation” must provide people with disabilities equal opportunities to access their services. When this law was signed in 1990, the Internet was not part of everyday life nor considered a “public accommodation.” Today, this is very much the case, and the Internet dominates daily life.

Countless times, bills have been introduced to bridge this generational gap by defining websites as public accommodations (Online Accessibility Act/HR1100, Website and Software Applications Accessibility Act/S4998/HR9021), only to die in committee. They seem to be cast aside due to inconvenience or overshadowing by more publicized legislation. Yes, the ADA currently requires web accessibility for government sites, which only account for a small part of Internet use, but lacks a firm stance on online business services. It also lacks specific technical guidelines that web developers should follow, merely providing a suggested list of generic accessibility conventions. This inconsistency makes it impossible to determine if websites are actually ADA-compliant. Congressmen must realize the urgency of these issues and consider requiring business sites to meet a set standard of guidelines, such as the widely-used Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

One common argument small businesses make against expanding the ADA to digital spaces is the cost of compliance. Of course, building accessible websites can be expensive and time-consuming, but the government can offset this through grants and tax deductions, just as it funded physical accessibility renovations in the past. There also exist countless free guides online, like those created by the World Wide Web Consortium, to learn firsthand how to fix core accessibility issues. Still, other critics argue that government enforcement diverts resources from broader societal needs. However, this “majority-first” perspective overlooks the fact that millions of disabled Americans are not being given fundamental rights to access essential services. This is not a mere minority concern.

Meanwhile, the case for enforcing accessibility is obvious: it is a matter of civil rights and equal access. Even in daily life, those with disabilities have less of a voice than others. Therefore, Congress is all the more responsible for supporting them by ensuring they are included in the digital age. In addition, updating the ADA will provide legal clarity and consistency with its original intent, helping businesses understand their obligations and reducing legal disputes with customers (ADA-related lawsuits have steadily increased in recent years, with online commerce businesses accounting for 74% of them). Considering that 14% of Americans have a disability, ensuring accessibility will also promote economic growth by expanding the online customer base and fostering innovation in accessible technologies. In today’s widespread efforts to set new standards of equity, the inclusion of ethnicity is emphasized, while the inclusion of disability is overlooked. It is Congress’s duty to solve this, making sure each citizen feels heard and valued.