US non-profit group sues CNN.com for uncaptioned online video.
Contrast this with schools and universities, who often complain they don't have the funding to do captioning/transcripts.
Of course, being sued doesn't mean they will be forced to add captions, or that they will pay any money (other than court and lawyer fees), or that this will cause any change in law.
But if you have a company that offers online video, you should be aware of this, since I believe there is a slow shift moving from government to private-enterprise regarding accessibility and what's expected as "basic" by the public.
Importantly, neither this news piece nor the link it has to Mercury News mentions what the plaintiffs did before suing. Was there a dialogue with CNN/Time Warner before this?
In the Target case, there was a dialogue, and ultimately Target had refused to work further at some point... that's when the lawsuit came.
In JetBlue's case, I don't know what, if anything, happened there. Was JetBlue made aware? Did people complain? Did JetBlue have plans to fix the problems?
Also as news and other internet junk becomes less local and more global, would say the BBC have an advantage if they were offering captioned videos of the Japanese Tsunami but CNN wasn't?