a 2017 case, Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, in which a federal court in Florida ruled that Winn Dixie's website must be accessible. Around 800 cases related to web accessibility were filed in 2017, and over 2,200 were filed in 2018. Additionally, though the Justice Department had stated in 2010 that they would publish guidelines for web accessibility, they reversed this plan in 2017, also spurring legal action against inaccessible sites. A notable lawsuit related to the ADA was filed against Domino's Pizza by a blind user who could not use Domino's mobile app. At the federal district level, the court ruled in favor of Domino's as the Justice Department had not established the guidelines for accessibility, but this was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit overruled the district court, ruling that because Domino's is a brick-and-mortar store, which must meet the ADA, and the mobile app an extension of their services, their app must also be compliant with the ADA. Domino's petitioned to the Supreme Court, backed by many other restaurants and retail chains, arguing that this decision impacts their Due Process since disabled customers have other, more accessible means to order. In October 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which effectively upheld the decision of the 9th Circuit Court and requires the case to be heard as it stands. The number and cost of federal accessibility lawsuits has risen dramatically in the last few years. Website accessibility audits A growing number of organizations, companies and consultants offer website accessibility audits. These audits, a type of system testing, identify accessibility problems that exist within a website, and provide advice and guidance on the steps that need to be taken to correct these problems. A range of methods are used to audit websites for accessibility: Automated tools are available which can identify some of the problems that are present. Depending on the tool the result may vary widely making it difficult to compare test results. Expert technical reviewers, knowledgeable in web design technologies and accessibility, can review a representative selection of pages and provide detailed feedback and advice based on their findings. User testing, usually overseen by technical experts, involves setting tasks for ordinary users to carry out on the website, and reviewing the problems these users encounter as they try to carry out the tasks. Each of these methods has its strengths and weaknesses: