FEDERAL · 47 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER II—COMMON CARRIERS
Access by persons with disabilities
47 U.S.C. § 255
This text of 47 U.S.C. § 255 (Access by persons with disabilities) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
47 U.S.C. § 255.
Text
(b)Manufacturing
A manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
(c)Telecommunications services
A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
(d)Compatibility
Whenever the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) are not readily achievable, such a manufacturer or provider shall
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Tcg Detroit, (98-2034), (98-2035) v. City of Dearborn, (98-2034),third-Party (98-2035), Ameritech Michigan, Incorporated, Third-Party (98-2035)
206 F.3d 618 (Third Circuit, 2000)
At & T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Dallas
8 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D. Texas, 1998)
At&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Austin, Tex.
975 F. Supp. 928 (W.D. Texas, 1997)
TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains
305 F.3d 67 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Spectra Communications Group v. City of Cameron, Missouri
806 F.3d 1113 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
Qwest Communications Corp. v. City of Berkeley
202 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. California, 2001)
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
27 F. Supp. 2d 326 (D. Connecticut, 1998)
Fair v. Verizon Communications Inc.
621 F. App'x 52 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Pacific Bell v. Cook Telecom, Inc.
197 F.3d 1236 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
G v. Fay Sch., Inc.
282 F. Supp. 3d 381 (District of Columbia, 2017)
At & T Communications of California, Inc. v. Pacific Bell
60 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. California, 1999)
TCG Detroit v. Dearborn
(Sixth Circuit, 2000)
Baidan v. Romanovska
(N.D. California, 2024)
Mapes v. Cable One
(N.D. Indiana, 2022)
Source Credit
History
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §255, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, §101(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 75.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 12102 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was amended generally by Pub. L. 110–325, §4(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3555, and, as so amended, provisions formerly appearing in par. (2)(A) are now contained in par. (1)(A).
References in Text
Section 12102 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was amended generally by Pub. L. 110–325, §4(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3555, and, as so amended, provisions formerly appearing in par. (2)(A) are now contained in par. (1)(A).
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
47 U.S.C. § 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/47/255.