Deaf Man Sues Major Porn Company For Discrimination

Image via Pexels

Pornhub’s Lack Of Closed Captioning Led A Deaf Phoenix Man To Sue To The Company


When it comes to porn websites, we all have our own preferences. Conversing with friends, it seems everyone has different ways of hunting for the good stuff. Personally, I’m old school and choose to go the Xtube route, while others browse Google for a particular niche video, but it seems the large majority click to Pornhub to get their rocks off. Pornhub has grown so much in popularity that you could say it is responsible for taking pornography mainstream. The site even launched its own porn awards based on views, with Austin Wolf taking home the award for most popular pornstar of 2019.



But, it’s not all rainbows and sunshine when it comes to your private time as we recently learned from one Arizona man.  According to Fox News, Yaroslav Suris, who is deaf, is suing Pornhub for a lack of closed captions on their videos as it violates the rights of deaf and hearing-impaired under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Suris claims he would fork over bills for a premium subscription to the website, but claims it to be pointless without guaranteed subtitles. Apparently, there is at least one person out there who really enjoys the storylines in porn… or could this be a rouse for a quick come up of money?


Let us not forget that we’ve seen plenty of outrageously silly lawsuits in the past. In the ‘90s alone, a man sued Bud Light because he was getting drunk and not landing attractive women like the men drinking beer in the advertisements. Of course, his case was dismissed. And who could forget about Stella Liebeck? You know, the old woman who was awarded almost three million dollars for having “too hot” hot coffee from McDonalds? Yeah… crazy things have happened, so we can only wonder where the lawsuit against Pornhub will go.


The ADA is a serious thing as it stretches across the internet.

But courts are split about the extent to which Title III of the ADA applies to websites operated by places of public accommodation.  For example, courts in the Ninth Circuit hold that Title III of the ADA applies only when there is a “nexus” between a challenged service offered over the Internet and a physical place of public accommodation.  See, e.g.Nat’l Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006).  On the other hand, a court in Massachusetts recently held that web-streaming services offered by Netflix are subject to Title III of the ADA even without a “nexus” to a physical place of accommodation.  See Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, 869 F.Supp.2d 196 (D. Mass. 2012). – lexology.com

So with a quick glance at the ADA, Pornhub may be safe, but the courts can always interpret the ADA as they see fit.  We wonder what kind of evidence or research will need to be done.  Can we be on the jury?


Source: Fox News Los Angeles   ,    lexology.com


Writer’s Note: This is the opinion of one Instinct Magazine contributor and does not reflect the views of Instinct Magazine itself or fellow contributors.

Leave a Comment