The title of the article (which is from the original) is inaccurate.
1. This is not precedent. It is just a district court.
2. The article reads like the NAD has won the case. They have not. This was a ruling on Netflix's motion to dismiss NAD's case based on the pleadings. Basically, Netflix was saying that the ADA does not even apply, so the case should be throw out. The judge decided that it could apply, and so the case will go forward.
1. This is not precedent. It is just a district court.
2. The article reads like the NAD has won the case. They have not. This was a ruling on Netflix's motion to dismiss NAD's case based on the pleadings. Basically, Netflix was saying that the ADA does not even apply, so the case should be throw out. The judge decided that it could apply, and so the case will go forward.