Federal Court Recommends Dismissing Rolex Website Accessibility Case Under Physical Nexus Rule

In a report and recommendation issued on May 9, 2024, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania addressed a website accessibility lawsuit brought against Rolex SA and Rolex Watch USA, Inc. The pending recommendation addresses Rolex SA's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).

The action was filed by a blind plaintiff who relies on screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content. The plaintiff claimed that Rolex SA's website (www.Rolex.com) contains access barriers that make it impossible to perceive, understand, or operate its digital features, thereby denying visually impaired users full and equal access under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Found Over Rolex SA

Rolex SA, a Swiss corporation headquartered in Geneva, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, pointing out that it has no employees, no manufacturing facilities, and no business registrations in Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the United States. While the magistrate judge agreed that general jurisdiction was absent, he determined that specific personal jurisdiction exists.

Applying the Zippo framework for internet interactivity, the magistrate judge concluded that the website occupies an intermediate category. Although users cannot purchase watches directly through the site, the platform offers interactive tools: users can configure personalized timepieces and access a store locator where entering a postal code provides local retailer addresses and directions in Pennsylvania. The court determined that this commercial interactivity purposefully directs promotional activity toward the forum state, creating sufficient minimum contacts directly related to the plaintiff's accessibility claims.

Dismissal Recommended Under the ADA Nexus Requirement

Rolex SA also moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that the website is not a "place of public accommodation" under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). For the purposes of the motion, Rolex SA did not dispute its ownership of the site or its alleged incompatibility with screen readers.

Reviewing precedent within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (including Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp. and Peoples v. Discover Financial Services), the magistrate judge noted that the circuit confines Title III public accommodations to physical places. Under this framework, a digital service must share a "nexus" with a physical place of public accommodation owned, operated, or leased by the defendant.

Because the plaintiff did not allege any physical brick-and-mortar facility owned, leased, or operated by Rolex SA in connection with the disputed online services, the amended complaint failed to state a plausible ADA violation under governing circuit law.

Outcome and Next Steps

The magistrate judge recommended that Rolex SA's motion be denied with respect to personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), but granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Because pleading defects might be corrected, it was recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice, granting the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. The parties were given a deadline of May 23, 2024, to file written objections to the report and recommendation.

The case document is available via govinfo.gov.