[1] The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

[2][3] The case began when Plaintiff Todd Ouellette filed his complaint without an attorney (pro se).

Plaintiff further alleged that the videos were fair use and that defendants' refusal to put them back up was in violation of the DMCA takedown provisions.

[6] The plaintiff sent counter notices to defendants that he alleged were complete except for minor errors due to his dyslexia.

[4] He contended that the failure to restore the videos shows a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by depriving him of his "right to fair access to [Defendants'] 'public accommodation'" (arguing that the services constituted an "online theater").

[7] He also claimed that these websites did not comply with the ADA by having text and formatting impossible for him to read as a dyslexic person, particularly in the Terms of Service.

The Court waived the normal fees for filing the action because the plaintiff was unable to pay them (In Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915).

"[7] The statutory intent is to make it easier for service providers to know what opens the door to lawsuits against them for infringement.

[18] Thus, retail websites and other companies that have online presences that closely track the function of their physical stores will have to comply with the ADA.