[로펌의기술]⑩ “Online shopping is more desperate for the visually impaired”…’Barun’, a law firm that found evidence of discrimination with both eyes closed

Enter 2021.03.17 06:00

Online shopping mall ““Excessive cost to enter alt text”
Court “providing alternate text to fulfill legal obligations”

Online shopping mall where you can buy what you need with just a few clicks. It is a convenient shopping method for the general public, but for the visually impaired, it is just a’cake of the picture’. This is because almost all product information is uploaded as image content such as photos and pictures. If there is no’alternative text’ that describes the image content in words on the shopping mall site, the visually impaired cannot know whether the product in the photo is a mask or ramen.

Most of the large domestic online shopping malls do not provide alternative texts for the visually impaired. Accordingly, 963 people with visual impairments filed a lawsuit against Lotte Shopping, E-Mart, and eBay Korea, saying, “We are discriminated against using online shopping malls.” On the 18th, the blind people raised their hands.

This is the first time in the history of justice that a court has ordered an online shopping mall to provide the convenience of the blind. With the prolonged new coronavirus infection (Corona 19), online shopping became popular, and this ruling had a significant impact on improving convenience for the visually impaired. In some way, Barun, a law firm, has been acting on behalf of the visually impaired in this fight of’no money’. In response, Lotte Shopping and E-Mart were defended by Pacific Law Firm, and eBay Korea was defended by Law Firm Square.

◇ The court “is discriminated against”… ‘Proactive measures’ for corrective actions are also ordered.
Visually impaired people filed a lawsuit based on Articles 4, 20, and 21 of the’Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities Act’ in July 2017. In order for the visually impaired to use electronic information (online shopping mall) on the same level as those without disabilities, it is necessary to provide necessary means such as screen readers and alternative texts, and it is illegal to refuse to provide such conveniences.

For example, if you sell’Company A’s men’s leather wallet’ in an online shopping mall, when you upload a related product image, ‘You have to enter a description such as’. This is because the description can be heard through the’screen reader’ only when the alternative text for the product image is properly entered. However, none of the large-scale online shopping malls in Korea defended this.

In this regard, Barun, a law firm, emphasized the fact that most of the web pages such as event screens as well as online shopping mall product descriptions are composed of image content. Even if there is alternative text He pointed out that the information that cannot be recognized, such as information, is entered only formally.

At the same time, in this situation, the visually impaired people could not use the online shopping mall, so they also requested’active measures’ for quick correction.

On the other hand, Pacific and Plaza emphasized that most of the online shopping malls directly register products. In addition, for all products, the shopping mall directly provided alternative texts with excessive cost and burden, and there were circumstances that were remarkably difficult to implement.

After more than three years of first trial, the court finally determined that online shopping malls discriminated against the visually impaired. The court sentenced, “The defendant must pay 100,000 won each to 963 plaintiffs,” and “provide all product information, advertisements, event guides, image links, and alternative text related to image buttons (each function and purpose).” . It also acknowledged the need for active measures requested by the visually impaired side.

Compared to the amount of compensation (2 million won) previously claimed by the visually impaired, it was a remarkably small amount, but in terms of content, it was an overwhelming victory for the visually impaired.

The court also explained to the online shopping mall’s claim that it is difficult to provide alternative texts on behalf of business partners, saying, “Providing alternative texts is only fulfilling legal obligations, not as caring for the visually impaired.” .

Regarding the concern of the online shopping mall that’excessive costs’ may be borne, the objective data that the defendant’s sales, business size, etc. are considered to be excessive costs or to the extent of causing serious economic damage to the defendant are objective data. “It was not submitted” and did not accept the claim.

◇”Close your eyes and think about’online shopping’ and approach”

On behalf of the visually impaired, it was Jae-hwan Kim (22nd Judicial Research and Training Institute), Minsu Kim (35th Judicial Research & Training Institute), and Jihee Kim (1 attorney examination) of Barun Law Firm. He had to look at the case from the perspective of the visually impaired, so he had difficulties in preparing data and collecting evidence, but he said he was proud of winning.

Attorney Kim Jae-hwan said, “For the visually impaired, online shopping is a safe shopping method that can minimize movement and risk.”

“I had never experienced how to access the Internet when I was blind, so I approached it while thinking with my eyes closed.” He added, “I hope that the defendant’s companies will quickly finish the trial and provide practical convenience to the visually impaired. I came with my heart,” he said.

Barun’s side was convinced that it would be able to conclude as soon as the trial began, as the circumstances and evidence of discrimination in online shopping malls against visually impaired people were clear. Nevertheless, I thought that the reason that the trial was extended for more than three years was because this case had the meaning of’the first’.

Attorney Kim said, “As it was the first case in history, it would not have been easy for the judge to conclude,” he said. “The reason that the sentence was sentenced less than the amount of compensation requested is because of the symbolism of the first case.

However, regarding the reason for not appealing the small amount of compensation, he said, “The content of the judgment was more meaningful than the amount of compensation. In particular, the clients were very welcoming the order of the court to provide an alternative text.” He said, “Beginning with the defendant’s order, we hope that other online shopping malls will actively provide alternative texts for the visually impaired,” he said.

Meanwhile, Lotte Shopping, E-Mart, and eBay appealed against the first trial ruling to compensate visually impaired people each 100,000 won and provide alternative text for all product photos. In the upcoming appeal trial, Barun will represent the visually impaired, and the law firm Pacific and Kwangjang will represent the online shopping mall as it is.