There is a significant and growing need for Australian digital accessibility across industries to ensure equal access to digital content for individuals with disabilities.

In Australia, digital accessibility, including video accessibility, is governed by industry laws and guidelines. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is the overarching legislation prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in many areas, including access to information and services.

In the education sector, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) mandates that all students with disabilities have the right to access education on the same basis as their peers without disabilities. This includes ensuring that digital content, such as videos, is accessible through provisioning captions, audio descriptions, and transcripts.

For businesses and organizations, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), serve as the international standard for digital accessibility. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends that all websites and digital content comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. This includes providing captions and audio descriptions for videos, ensuring that content is keyboard accessible, and using clear, simple language.

In the media industry, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires broadcasters to provide captions for all television programs aired between 6 am and midnight on their main channels. The same act also mandates that subscription television licensees provide at least 90% captioned content on their primary channels.

 Australian Digital Accessibility Lawsuits On the Rise

Recently, there has been a notable increase in accessibility lawsuits in Australia. Several high-profile lawsuits and a growing awareness of digital accessibility have contributed to this trend. Several common factors suggest a significant rise in recent years.

•  Increased awareness: As more people become aware of their rights under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and other relevant legislation, the likelihood of individuals taking legal action against non-compliant organizations has increased.
• High-profile cases: Landmark cases like Bruce Maguire v SOCOG (2000) and Innes v State of Queensland (2018) have set important precedents and raised public awareness about digital accessibility issues, potentially encouraging more individuals to pursue legal action.
• Technological advancements: With the rapid development of assistive technologies and the increasing reliance on digital platforms, the demand for accessible digital content and services has grown, leading to a higher likelihood of lawsuits when accessibility needs are unmet.
• Regulatory focus: In recent years, the Australian government and regulatory bodies have placed greater emphasis on digital accessibility. For example, the Australian Human Rights Commission has actively promoted the adoption of WCAG 2.1 guidelines, and the government has implemented initiatives like the Digital Service Standard, which includes accessibility requirements for government websites and services.

The increase in accessibility lawsuits can be attributed to several factors, including greater awareness of digital accessibility issues, advancements in assistive technologies, and the growing importance of digital content and services in everyday life. As more people with disabilities assert their rights to equal access and as digital accessibility becomes a more prominent issue, the number of lawsuits will likely continue to rise in Australia.

This trend highlights the need for Australian companies and organizations to prioritize digital accessibility and ensure compliance with relevant laws and guidelines to avoid legal action and to provide equal access to all users.

Landmark Australian Accessibility Cases

In a landmark case, Bruce Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) (2000), the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) found that SOCOG had unlawfully discriminated against Bruce Maguire, a blind man, by failing to provide a website that was accessible to him. The commission ordered SOCOG to make their website accessible and awarded Maguire $20,000 in damages (Bruce Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, H 99/115, (2000) HREOC 64).

Another notable case is Innes v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (2018), where Graeme Innes, a blind man, successfully sued Queensland Health for failing to provide accessible documents on their website. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia ordered Queensland Health to pay Innes $10,000 in damages and to make their website accessible (Innes v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), [2018] FCCA 2763).

In the case of Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2017), the Federal Court of Australia found that the college had unlawfully discriminated against Dr. George Sklavos, a dermatologist with a vision impairment, by failing to provide accessible educational materials, including videos. The court ordered the college to pay Dr. Sklavos $15,000 in damages and ensure their educational materials were accessible (Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists, [2017] FCAFC 128).

These cases demonstrate that Australian companies and organizations not complying with legal requirements for digital accessibility may face significant financial penalties and legal consequences. Moreover, the reputational damage associated with such lawsuits can be substantial, highlighting the importance of prioritizing accessibility in the digital age.

Higher Education Accessibility Squeeze

When an Australian school fails to provide video captions for students with accessibility needs, they are in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE). The consequences for the school can be significant and may include:

• Complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC): The student or their family may lodge a complaint with the AHRC, which can investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the issue through conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the AHRC may refer the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.
• Legal action: The student or their family may pursue legal action against the school in the Federal Court of Australia. If the court finds that the school unlawfully discriminated against the student by failing to provide captions, the school may be ordered to remedy the situation and pay damages to the student.
• Department of Education intervention: The relevant state or territory Department of Education may investigate the school’s non-compliance with the DSE and take appropriate action, such as requiring the school to develop an action plan to address the issue or providing additional support and resources to ensure compliance.
• Funding implications: Non-compliance with accessibility requirements may result in the school losing access to specific government funding or grants conditional upon meeting disability standards.

Australian schools are strongly encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure that all students, including those with accessibility needs, have equal access to education. This includes providing video captions, audio descriptions, and other necessary accommodations per the DDA and DSE. By prioritizing accessibility, schools can create an inclusive learning environment and minimize the risk of legal action and other adverse outcomes.

Summary

In Australia, digital accessibility, including video accessibility, is regulated by various laws and guidelines across different sectors. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is the primary legislation prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in many areas, including access to information and services. The education sector is governed by the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE), which ensures that students with disabilities have equal access to education, including accessible digital content such as captioned and audio-described videos. Businesses and organizations are encouraged to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, an international standard for digital accessibility, with the Australian Human Rights Commission recommending compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 regulates the media industry, which mandates captions for television programs and a minimum of 90% captioned content on primary channels of subscription television licensees.

Failure to comply with these legal requirements can result in serious consequences for Australian companies and organizations, including lawsuits, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Landmark cases such as Bruce Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (2000), Innes v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (2018), and Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2017) demonstrate the potential repercussions of not prioritizing digital accessibility. As digital content continues to play a vital role in various aspects of life, Australian industries must ensure that everyone, including individuals with disabilities, can access and engage equally with digital content, including videos.

 

***

 

Embracing Neurodiverse Learners Through Remote Learning

Despite its advantages, remote learning is only suitable for some neurodivergent students, just as it may not be for neurotypical students. Virtual learning often requires significant support from families and can impede the development of social skills and the achievement of individualized education plan (IEP) goals. Many neurodivergent students feel lonely and longing for their friends when they are not physically present in the classroom. While video conferencing accommodates remote communication, it still challenges establishing genuine emotional connections. Read More >>

 

Accessible Video Legal Requirements for Private Universities: Federal Funding and Public Places of Accommodation