In October a visually-impaired gamer sued Sony, alleging that it wasn't fulfilling its responsibilities under U.S. law to provide access to the disabled. The reasoning depending on finding that Sony's products constitute a public accommodation. A judge said they aren't.
Plaintiff Alexander Stern sued Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment America and Sony Online Entertainment in federal court for the Central District of California, alleging that "his visual processing impairments prevent him from fully enjoying the video games manufactured by Sony, some of which are played on gaming systems with internet connections through which players in different locations can communicate and play with or against one another."
The court, in granting Sony's motion to dismiss on Feb. 8, refused to go so far as to say any game Sony currently makes constitutes a public accommodation. A public accommodation doesn't need to be publicly owned -very loosely speaking it can be a grocery store, hotel or office building whose use is generally available to the public. In a broad sense, we were talking about applying that standard to a virtual environment.
So as you can imagine, allowing the suit to proceed on this finding would have wide ramifications for games publishers. Instead, the court found Sony "is not a place of public accommodation," and therefore is not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Disabled Gamer's Suit Against Sony Tossed [Game Politics]