The law argues that disabled people were harmed when Berkeley used public resources to publish something not accessible to the disabled.
Again, you have to think more broadly than the specific parties in this incident. Just because the lawsuit was brought by this specific plaintiff doesn't mean that this content was effectively "hidden" from disabled folks that may have been interested in the past.
If this lawsuit hadn't raised attention, then it's possible Berkeley (and others in society) would continue to make inaccessible content. The law isn't very effective if it requires a disability advocate to file a lawsuit before it is enforced.
"The law argues that disabled people were harmed when Berkeley used public resources to publish something not accessible to the disabled."
But Berkeley isn't being punished. The general public, including disabled people is.
"Just because the lawsuit was brought by this specific plaintiff doesn't mean that this content was effectively "hidden" from disabled folks that may have been interested in the past."
I realize that. However, it seems to me that this outcome is, if anything, making the situation worse. Blind people could presumably get something from the audio content. Deaf people could get something from the video content. Now they can't. How is this better?
Again, you have to think more broadly than the specific parties in this incident. Just because the lawsuit was brought by this specific plaintiff doesn't mean that this content was effectively "hidden" from disabled folks that may have been interested in the past.
If this lawsuit hadn't raised attention, then it's possible Berkeley (and others in society) would continue to make inaccessible content. The law isn't very effective if it requires a disability advocate to file a lawsuit before it is enforced.