Supreme Court backs subtitles, audio descriptions for disabled audiences
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that movie theaters’ failure to provide audio descriptions and subtitles for people with visual and hearing impairments constitutes disability discrimination. It overturned a lower court ruling that had limited when theaters must offer accessibility services. The case was filed in February 2016 by two visually impaired and two hearing-impaired people against three multiplex operators, including CJ CGV. The high court must reconsider the case.
Key Facts
- The lawsuit was filed in February 2016 by two visually impaired and two hearing-impaired people against three multiplex operators, including CJ CGV.
- The Seoul High Court ruled in November 2021 that theaters with 300 or more seats must provide subtitles and audio descriptions for 3 percent of their screenings.
- The Supreme Court said the lower court placed excessive weight on the financial burden of theater operators.
- The Supreme Court said the defendants’ failure to provide audio descriptions, subtitles and receiving devices is a discriminatory act prohibited under the disability discrimination law.
A woman swipes through a kiosk at a movie theater in Seoul, Tuesday. Yonhap
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that movie theaters' failure to provide audio descriptions and subtitles for people with visual and hearing impairments constitutes disability discrimination.
The top court made the ruling while overturning a lower court verdict that strictly limited the number of screenings and theaters required to provide accessibility services for people with disabilities.
The lawsuit was filed against three multiplex operators, including CJ CGV, in February 2016 by two visually impaired and two hearing-impaired people, who demanded the theaters provide subtitles and audio descriptions for all movies screened.
The Seoul High Court ruled in November 2021 that theaters with 300 or more seats must provide subtitles and audio descriptions at a frequency equivalent to 3 percent of their total screenings, citing excessive financial burden on movie theater operators.
The Supreme Court ordered the high court to reconsider the case, saying it had placed excessive weight on the financial burden of theater operators.
The Supreme Court said the defendants' failure to provide the plaintiffs with audio descriptions, subtitles and receiving devices constitutes a discriminatory act prohibited under the disability discrimination law.
Explore More
- Q.
- Q.
- Q.