In recent years, federal courts—particularly in New York—have seen a wave of ADA Title III lawsuits targeting website accessibility issues. While the Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities, a growing number of cases have been brought by serial ADA plaintiffs—individuals who file dozens of near-identical lawsuits across various businesses, often seeking attorney’s fees rather than pursuing real accessibility improvements.

Now, two recent federal court decisions—Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) and Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc. (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2025)—are signaling a turning point. Both rulings reflect a trend toward stricter judicial scrutiny and a renewed focus on standing. The message from the courts is becoming clear: claims must be backed by credible, specific allegations of harm—not just boilerplate language.

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

In 2024, more than 2,400 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging website accessibility barriers—a slight uptick from the year before. But despite the continued volume, filings in New York federal courts dropped by 39% compared to 2022, reflecting a noticeable shift. Just 23 plaintiffs were responsible for over half of the cases, pointing to a strategy rooted more in quantity than in quality—a hallmark of serial ADA plaintiffs.

These lawsuits typically rely on generic language, vague descriptions of barriers, and claims of intent to return that lack meaningful context. Courts are now starting to challenge those claims more directly, pushing back on whether plaintiffs have suffered a legitimate “injury in fact” or have any real intention of using the websites they’re suing over.

2. Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC

In this case, Felipe Fernandez, who is legally blind, sued Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., claiming that he couldn’t complete a purchase of a leather jacket due to accessibility barriers on the company’s website. He pointed to issues like missing alt text and form labels, and stated that he intended to return and complete the purchase once the issues were resolved.

The Court’s Response

Judge John Cronan didn’t dismiss the case outright. Instead, he ordered jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing to explore whether Fernandez actually had standing to sue. His reasoning was grounded in constitutional principles:

“Article III standing is not merely a pleading hurdle—it’s a core constitutional guardrail.”

The court flagged several red flags:

• Fernandez had filed dozens of similar complaints, often within the same week, using the same legal template.
• He claimed to have tried to purchase items ranging from leather jackets to African necklaces to martial arts gear—an unusually wide variety for a single consumer.
• Despite claiming he couldn’t navigate the site, he referenced specific product features, pricing, and even a promotional discount—suggesting that the site may not have been as inaccessible as alleged.

To dig deeper, the court authorized a forensic review of Fernandez’s browsing history and potentially a deposition, signaling a strong interest in validating the sincerity of his claims and patterns consistent with serial ADA plaintiffs.

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

In a separate case, plaintiff Jahron Black—also legally blind—filed suit against a Chinese restaurant, claiming he couldn’t access key information on its website, such as the menu and location details. He said he wanted to visit the restaurant “immediately” and often frequented the neighborhood.

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

Judge Natasha Merle dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, even though the defendant had argued mootness due to recent accessibility fixes. The judge found that:

• Black failed to explain how the website’s issues prevented him from visiting the physical location.
• He didn’t attempt to get the same information through other means, like a phone call or search engine—undermining his claim of urgency.
• There was no compelling reason offered for why this particular restaurant mattered, especially given New York City’s wide range of similar dining options.
  

While not central to the decision, the judge noted that Black had filed 27 similar lawsuits within the previous year, a pattern that mirrors the behavior of serial ADA plaintiffs.

The court concluded that the complaint didn’t show any real intent to return or actual harm, and dismissed the case without leave to amend.

4. Why These Rulings Matter

Together, these decisions point to a more assertive judicial approach to ADA website litigation driven by serial ADA plaintiffs. Courts are no longer content to accept vague allegations and templated filings. Instead, they’re insisting on:

• Specific, credible claims of harm
• Clear intent to return or complete a transaction
• Evidence to support those claims, such as browsing history or meaningful engagement with the site

In Fernandez, the court is even considering deposing the plaintiff and conducting a forensic review of his device—an extraordinary step that shows how seriously judges are taking the issue of standing.

5. What This Means for Plaintiffs, Businesses, and the Courts

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys

Courts are demanding more. To pursue these cases in federal court, plaintiffs must provide:

• Documented evidence of actual attempts to use the site
• Specific descriptions of what went wrong and how it impacted them
• A credible reason for why they’d return

Vague complaints and mass filings are less likely to survive a motion to dismiss. They may also trigger closer scrutiny of the plaintiff’s litigation history—especially for known serial ADA filers.

For Businesses

These rulings present an opportunity to push back when faced with questionable lawsuits. Businesses should consider:

• Challenging standing early, especially if the complaint lacks details or appears templated
• Requesting jurisdictional discovery to verify the plaintiff’s claims
• Tracking patterns of repeated filings by the same individuals or firms

Additionally, some plaintiff firms are now shifting lawsuits to state courts, where standing requirements are generally less demanding. Businesses should prepare for this potential change in forum.

For the Legal System

This trend marks a balancing act: protecting the ADA’s intent while discouraging opportunistic litigation. Federal courts are raising the bar for standing in accessibility lawsuits. This reinforces the idea that these cases should address real-world barriers and genuine attempts to engage with businesses—not rely on legal templates meant to generate fees.

6. Looking Ahead

The upcoming hearing in Fernandez could prove to be a watershed moment. If the court finds that Fernandez lacked standing, it would further solidify the trend toward stricter standards. If the case moves forward, it may help define what constitutes credible evidence of harm in ADA website lawsuits.

Either way, these rulings serve as a wake-up call for both sides: businesses must continue improving accessibility, but the legal process must remain focused on real harm—not manufactured complaints.

A Turning Point—and a Call to Act

The landscape for serial ADA plaintiffs is shifting. Courts are drawing a firmer line between legitimate accessibility concerns and litigation that appears more about fees than fairness. For businesses, this means new opportunities to defend against weak claims—but also a strong reminder that proactive, meaningful accessibility improvements remain the best long-term strategy.

As these cases evolve, so too must the approach to compliance and litigation. The stakes are higher, and the scrutiny is sharper. Now more than ever, standing—and sincerity—matter.

Not sure if your site is at risk? Schedule a free ADA briefing with 216digital to assess your exposure and get expert guidance