This decision adopts the majority view that a website that is inaccessible to the blind can be a “place of accommodation” that violates the federal ADA and state Unruh Act if the website has a sufficient nexus to the provision of or access to the goods or services the defendant offers from its physical locations. Here, plaintiff alleged sufficient nexus by averring that he would, if the website were compatible with blind website reading software, use the site to locate the defendant credit union’s nearest locations and use the website to browse the defendant’s products and services online. The courts need not abstain from enforcing the ADA as to websites merely because the Attorney General has not yet promulgated regulations dealing with website access.