CNN is a cable news network owned by Time Warner. The world headquarters is in Atlanta, GA. In 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against CNN by the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness (GLAD). Because CNN chose not to include captions for its short video clips, GLAD alleged that CNN was violating California's Civil Rights and the Disabled Persons Act (DPA). In 2012 a magistrate judge ruled against CNN's motion to dismiss the case. CNN argued that the lawsuit was dismissed due to California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The statute “provides a means to dismiss a complaint arising from an activity exercising free speech or the right to petition at an early stage” (Carter, 2014). The magistrate denied the request arguing that GLAD's request for subtitles for their short clips did not imply free speech (Carter, 2014). On February 5, 2014, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of CNN regarding the class action lawsuit. GLAD was unable to provide evidence of discrimination by CNN. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a magistrate judge's ruling requiring videos on CNN's website to provide closed captioning. It is a problem for the company because it calls into question its legal and ethical obligations. Multimedia content is a powerful tool for defining how and what to think about an issue. CNN's media coverage of the controversy is both positive and negative. There are obvious differences between the two chosen news articles. The first article, written by Terry Carter, catches your attention with the headline “9th Circuit Tosses Part of Lawsuit Against CNN Requiring Closed Captions on Its Web Videos.” The choice of the word “launches” in the......middle of the paper......the inaction occurs due to the company's silence. This case will set the precedent for future issues regarding “virtual spaces” and whether or not they are included in equal access to “places of public accommodation” (Egelko, 2014). Both articles emphasize different aspects regarding the CNN issue. The first article reported the facts from a legal perspective and did not hold CNN responsible for its decision. The second article highlights the lack of media content that CNN chooses to hide from the deaf community. While the court's decisions to deny discrimination claim a positive outcome for CNN, the question remains as to what CNN's plans are to remedy the problem. With the case still under investigation, CNN should think about possible solutions. Internet users are in abundance. The timing of this victory coincides with news of CNN's low ratings.