Websites requiring a phone number is bad business and potential discrimination

Re:Websites requiring a phone number is bad business and pot... by smt88 on Sunday April 09, 2017 @10:00AM (#14072303)

1) More than 92% of Americans have cell phones[1].

2) An SMS/MMS-enabled number is free from Google Voice.

3) Cell plans don't require credit (except possibly for the phone itself). You can pre-pay.

4) This may be discrimination, but so is requiring an email address. The question is whether it's illegal discrimination, and the answer is no. "Phone type" is not a protected class, like race or religion, in the United States. "Income level" is also not a protected class.

1. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/chapter-1-always-on-co...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Websites requiring a phone number is bad business and pot... by dangrossman on Sunday April 09, 2017 @11:53AM (#14072856)

> "Phone type" is not a protected class, like race or religion, in the United States. "Income level" is also not a protected class.

If discriminating on the basis of phone type or income level has a disparately adverse affect on members of a protected class, then the policy is is illegal discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

[ Parent | on HN ]