A blind customer cannot order a pizza. Under a statute enacted in 1990 and written for buildings, is that a violation? Courts have answered yes, no, and it depends, and the Department of Justice has repeatedly declined to write the rule that would settle it. This article explains the resulting litigation wave: why Title III reaches websites in some circuits through a nexus to a physical place and in others as a standalone public accommodation, why the absence of a technical standard has not stopped courts from ordering compliance with a private consensus standard, and why the statute's remedial structure makes these cases economically rational to file and economically irrational to defend. It works the substantive obligations that apply to physical spaces as well, including the readily achievable barrier removal standard for existing facilities, the stricter design and construction rules for new construction and alterations, reasonable modification of policies, and effective communication through auxiliary aids. It closes with the standing fights over tester plaintiffs, the serial filing problem and what courts have done about it, and the practical answer for a business that would rather build an accessible product than litigate about one.