I don’t think this policy would pass muster under the ADA though.

The guy might not be sufficiently disabled to qualify - but for example if you have a blind person without a smartphone, you can’t tell them they’re out of luck - because you can clearly reasonably accommodate them without causing “undue financial hardship” by giving them tickets at will-call.

▲

robin_reala 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a blind person / person with low vision without a smartphone these days: they’re a near-essential window into services that aren’t accessible though plain paper.

▲

kube-system an hour ago | parent [-]

If they're 81yo, you definitely will.

	▲	30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

tmp10423288442 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> “undue financial hardship”

If they have already moved away from paper tickets for everyone else, now there is financial hardship, not to mention the loss to the team's economic position from scalping. Also smartphones have supported usage by the blind for years, particularly on iOS.

	▲	tacticalturtle 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In the linked video they explicitly print him a paper ticket that he purchased separately.

▲

ttfkam 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Visually impaired people use smartphones too. If the app isn't supporting the accessibility features of the platform, it should still be held liable under the ADA.

(Unfortunately it won't as was found when Southwest Airlines was sued over this. Congress hasn't updated the ADA to include web sites since the ADA precedes the web and so it wasn't enumerated explicitly. Also unfortunately, the GOP who have never been huge fans of the ADA have blocked any attempts at patching that hole.)

But check out the settings on your iPhone/iPad or Android device. Whole sections dedicated to accessibility, especially for the visually impaired.

▲

tacticalturtle 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Visual impairment was just my naive example - but maybe there’s a better one that still persists.

Regardless, maybe there’s a path to legislation forbidding smartphone requirements for huge monopoly businesses like national professional sports leagues. I’d hate for ownership of a consumer device to become codified as a requirement for participation in activities like this.

▲

raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes because we really need to give the government more power to selectively go after businesses - what could possibly go wrong?

	▲	kube-system 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Increased regulatory scrutiny is typically standard for all government granted monopolies. There are significant issues with this arrangement but it isn't because of the increased regulation, but usually the lack of it!

▲

rrr_oh_man 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I’d hate for ownership of a consumer device to become codified as a requirement for participation in activities like this.

What is your reasoning for that sentiment? (I don't disagree)

	▲	kube-system 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not to speak for the other person -- but I think the biggest reason is that these facilities are often constructed with public money and public resources and therefore owe some degree of public accessibility back to the community at large.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

raw_anon_1111 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Smart phones have had plenty of affordances for blind people. But they didn’t say he was blind or unable to use a smart phone

	▲	kube-system 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> he’s barely able to navigate a computer & phone.

▲

tracker1 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For that matter, he could/should look into filing an ADA complaint all the same.