Supreme Court Rules Online Shopping Malls Must Provide Screen Readers
A Supreme Court ruling has been finalized, stipulating the obligation for major online shopping malls to provide screen reader services that convert on-screen text to speech for visually impaired users. However, claims for damages stemming from the lack of existing services were not accepted.
Online shopping malls often presented product details as images, making it difficult for visually impaired users to recognize and access information with screen readers. Frequently, the 'alt text' required to read image information was not provided. Visually impaired individuals filed a lawsuit against Gmarket, SSG.com, and Lotte Shopping, seeking 2 million won per person in damages for discrimination in information access.
The shopping malls argued that providing alt text was practically difficult as the authority to edit product image descriptions lay with the individual sellers. The first and second trials ruled that the shopping malls' discriminatory practices were indeed unlawful, ordering them to provide alt text within six months of the ruling's finalization. However, the second trial did not recognize the obligation to pay damages, considering the unclear intent/negligence of the shopping malls and the practical difficulties, such as cooperation with partner companies. The Supreme Court found no errors in these previous judgments and upheld the decision that there was no liability for damages.
The visually impaired plaintiffs view the Supreme Court's ruling as a substantial deprivation of their fundamental rights and plan to file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. They argue that the court's confirmation of discrimination without providing relief for victims infringes upon the rights of persons with disabilities to access information, equality, and remedy through judicial proceedings. Visually impaired individuals held a press conference in front of the Constitutional Court to announce their filing for a constitutional complaint, asserting their fundamental rights were violated.
The Public Interest Lawyers' Association, Hope & Law, stated that rulings where courts acknowledge discrimination but offer no remedy to victims effectively strip persons with disabilities of their fundamental rights to access information, equality, and judicial remedy. The organization urged the Constitutional Court to confirm this point, arguing that without substantial remedies like compensation for victims of discrimination, the guarantee of fundamental rights remains merely a declaration.