Legal Compliance Archives/Category

How New U.S. Laws Could Change Accessibility Lawsuits

Accessibility lawsuits often start the same way. Someone flags barriers on your site, a letter arrives, and your team is asked to respond fast. That moment is rarely tidy. You are dealing with legal exposure, technical facts, and a customer experience problem at the same time.

Lawmakers are now proposing changes that could affect how these complaints move forward. Some ideas focus on requiring notice and a short remediation window. Others aim to define clearer federal website standards. States are also experimenting with ways to discourage filings they view as abusive. These proposals can change timing and paperwork, but they do not change what users face on the site today.

Below, we’ll take a closer look at the proposals taking shape and what they may suggest for future enforcement.

Why Lawmakers Are Pushing for Accessibility Reform

Across the country, lawmakers are responding to concerns that show up again and again when teams talk about demand letters and claims. Some are about cost and volume. Others are about uncertainty and inconsistent expectations.

The Pressure From High-Volume Filings

One of the strongest drivers is the rise in high-volume filings that reuse the same allegations with only minor changes. These accessibility lawsuits regularly target small and mid-sized organizations that already have limited time and budget to respond. Even when a team wants to do the right thing, the first step is often paperwork, outside counsel, and internal coordination.

Recent data shows how often the same organizations get pulled back in. In 2025, more than 5,000 digital accessibility cases were filed, and over 1,400 involved businesses that had already faced an ADA web claim. In federal court, about 46 percent of filings named repeat defendants.

Why States Point to Missing Title III Web Standards

Another driver is the long-running frustration with the Department of Justice’s lack of clear Title III web standards. States point to that gap when explaining why they are stepping in. Without federal regulations, expectations vary by jurisdiction. That creates uneven enforcement and room for conflicting court outcomes, even when the underlying barrier is similar.

Balancing Litigation Reform and Civil Rights

It is also important to recognize what private enforcement has done for access. Many of the improvements users rely on today came from individuals asserting their rights and pushing systems to change. Reform proposals often say they are trying to reduce opportunistic litigation without weakening civil rights. At the same time, some disability advocates warn that certain approaches can delay access if timelines stretch too far or if progress requirements stay vague.

Lawmakers are moving in different directions to tackle these concerns. That brings us to the next question.

What kinds of changes are actually being proposed?

Three Legal Changes Shaping Accessibility Lawsuits

Across federal and state discussions, most proposals about accessibility lawsuits fall into three categories. Each one could influence how demand letters work and how teams respond.

Federal Notice and Remediation Window Proposals

Some members of Congress have suggested adding a requirement that a notice be given before a lawsuit can proceed. Under these proposals, organizations would receive a written description of the alleged barrier and a short remediation window to show progress. One example is the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act. It outlines a written notice, a 30-day period to describe improvements, and an additional period tied to demonstrated progress.

A key nuance matters here. The bill focuses on architectural barriers at existing public accommodations. People often discuss these proposals alongside digital claims, but the text is narrower than many headlines suggest. Even so, the structure signals interest in early notice paired with proof of meaningful action.

Federal Website Accessibility Standards Proposals

Alongside notice concepts, Congress is also considering action focused on digital accessibility standards. The Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act of 2025 aims to set uniform expectations for websites and applications. It also directs federal agencies to define standards, update them over time, and clarify how digital access fits within existing civil rights protections.

If a federal standard becomes established, organizations would have a clearer target to design and test against. That also means teams may have less room to argue that they were unsure what to follow. Day-to-day development, QA, and content workflows would matter more because compliance would depend on consistent results, not occasional one-time reviews.

State Laws Targeting Abusive Website Accessibility Litigation

Several states are exploring their own approaches. Kansas has already created a mechanism for determining whether website accessibility litigation is abusive. Courts can consider whether the business attempted to remediate issues within a set period and whether improvements occurred within a ninety-day window. Missouri has introduced similar bills built around notice, remediation timelines, and potential fee shifting for bad-faith claims.

These laws do not remove the obligation to maintain accessible websites. They focus on how courts should evaluate filings that appear designed for settlement volume rather than user access.

What May Change in Accessibility Lawsuits and What Will Not

These proposals could affect the process around accessibility lawsuits, but they do not change the core expectation that users need to complete tasks without barriers. It helps to separate what may shift from what stays the same.

What May Change

Organizations may receive more detailed notices that cite specific pages, steps, or interactions. Response timelines may tighten if new regulations define how quickly a team must respond or document progress. Settlement leverage could shift in places where remediation windows, presumptions, or fee-shifting concepts affect how cases are evaluated.

What Will Not Change

Users still run into barriers today. A delayed filing does not remove the barrier for someone trying to complete a checkout, submit a form, access account settings, or read essential content. If issues remain unresolved or progress is not measurable, legal action can still move forward. A remediation window is not extra time. It is a countdown.

Multi-State Website Compliance and Accessibility Risk

If your website serves users across the country, state-level differences create practical challenges. Exposure does not depend only on where a business is located. It also depends on where users live and which courts may have jurisdiction over a claim.

How State Approaches Differ

Florida uses a different model. Organizations can file a remediation plan in a public registry. Courts can consider this plan when evaluating good-faith actions and potential attorney fees in Title III cases filed within the state.

California has explored a small-business-focused approach, such as a 120-day window to fix issues before statutory damages or fees are available. These experiments show that states are testing different tools to encourage remediation and reduce rushed filings.

Teams need a repeatable way to keep their sites usable across many jurisdictions.

Remediation Windows and a 30-Day Response Plan

A remediation window helps only when teams can move with structure and focus. Without a workflow, the pressure to fix issues quickly can lead to patch-level changes that create new problems. A clear process prevents that and keeps everyone aligned.

Days 0 to 3

Capture the notice, save screenshots, and list the URLs and user steps cited. Assign a single internal owner who can coordinate legal, product, and development.

Days 4 to 10

Reproduce the issues on the named flows. Test with keyboard and at least one screen reader. Trace the problems back to specific components, templates, or vendor scripts so you can fix the causes, not just page-level symptoms.

Days 11 to 25

Run a focused remediation sprint. Prioritize barriers that block task completion. Involve design and quality assurance so that fixes fit your system and avoid new regressions.

Days 26 to 30

Retest the affected flows. Capture what changed, when it shipped, and how it was verified. Add any related systemic issues to your backlog with clear owners and target dates.

This type of workflow reveals the deeper tension behind many of these proposals. Reform can influence pacing, but the work of removing barriers remains the same.

Legislative Reform and Real Access

It is understandable that organizations want protection from high-volume filings that feel more like templates than tailored complaints. Responding takes time, budget, and focus, and many teams do not have much of any of those to spare.

At the same time, disability advocates warn that lengthy remediation windows can delay access. If the standard for demonstrating progress is vague, people with disabilities may wait longer for functional experiences. What matters most is that barriers get fixed and stay fixed.

This tension is unlikely to disappear. It will continue because expectations around digital access are rising.

How to Make Website Accessibility Sustainable

The most reliable way to reduce risk is to keep accessibility work steady and consistent. That includes defining a clear accessibility standard, often WCAG 2.1 AA in practice. It also means keeping a backlog that mirrors actual user journeys and testing flows, rather than focusing only on individual pages.

Build Around High-Value User Journeys

A backlog is most useful when it maps to tasks that support the business and the customer. That means prioritizing flows like navigation, product discovery, forms, authentication, and checkout, plus the templates and components that power them.

Prevent Regressions Between Releases

Development and content teams benefit from adding monitoring and release checks. This avoids regressions that might otherwise go unnoticed. Documenting testing steps, changes, and verification helps demonstrate good-faith progress if a notice arrives. For many organizations, reviewing vendor risk and third-party scripts is another important control point.

Track How Regulations Are Evolving

These practices are becoming more important as regulations solidify. The Department of Justice has already finalized its Title II rule for state and local governments. Although Title III remains unsettled, expectations around digital access are becoming more defined.

If you’re deciding where to start, focus on the tasks that matter most to users. Improving key tasks protects both customers and teams.

How Teams Can Stay Ready as Regulations Take Shape

As lawmakers continue shaping how digital access is defined, businesses deserve guidance that reduces confusion, not adds to it. Clear standards give teams room to plan, improve, and maintain their websites without fear of being caught off guard. They also help shift the conversation away from surprise claims and toward steady, predictable work that fits into normal development cycles.

If your organization wants help building a reliable accessibility plan that supports long-term stability, 216digital is here for you. Schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing and let’s build a path that fits your team and your goals.

Greg McNeil

January 16, 2026

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, accessibility laws, Legal compliance, state accessibility laws, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
ADA Demand Letter for Websites: What It Looks Like
You open your inbox and see an email from a law office. Or a certified letter shows up at your door. It claims your website is inaccessible and says you may be in violation of the ADA. It is not a lawsuit, but it is also not nothing. An ADA demand letter can bring a wave of worry, yet it also gives you information you can use. When you understand how these letters work, you can read them with clarity, check what is accurate, and decide your next steps without fear.

Two questions usually come up right away. Is the letter legitimate, or is it something else? And what should be in it if it is credible? This article walks through how to recognize the parts of a letter, what each part means, and which details matter when one lands in your inbox.

A quick note. This is practical guidance, not legal advice. If a letter looks credible, involve counsel as soon as you can.

First, let’s define what an ADA demand letter is and why the structure matters.

What an ADA Demand Letter for a Website Is

An ADA demand letter is a formal notice saying that parts of your website may not be accessible to people with disabilities and could violate the ADA. Letters like this usually outline the issues the sender says they found. Many use Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to describe those issues because it gives them a shared language for barriers such as missing alt text, keyboard traps, or unclear labels. Some letters also request remediation within a set timeframe.

It helps to understand what an ADA demand letter is—and what it is not. While it is not a lawsuit, it can come before one. It is also not confirmation that the claims are correct, since most letters still require technical validation. And it is not always detailed: some letters are well prepared, while others are brief or contain errors.

Once you understand the structure, it becomes much easier to read these letters calmly and with purpose.

The Key Parts of an ADA Demand Letter

Most website-focused ADA demand letters follow the same pattern.
- Header and complainant information.
- Statement of alleged violations.
- Requested action.
- Deadline and next steps.
- Legal references and a signature at the end.
This structure helps you spot what is strong, what is vague, and what needs validation. You are checking for accuracy and consistency. You are also looking for signals that the sender spent time reviewing your site instead of relying on a template.

Let’s walk through each section.

Header and Complainant Information

The header identifies who is sending the letter and who they represent. It usually lists the attorney’s name, their contact information, the complainant, and the business they are writing to. You should see your organisation’s name and your website’s domain written clearly.

Capture these details right away.

Compare the letter’s date to the date you received it.

Note how it arrived, whether through email or postal mail.

Look closely at the domain listed. Does it match your active site?

Check for reference numbers or mention of specific pages.

A few fast credibility checks can make a big difference. Does the letter spell your business name correctly? Does it give complete contact information? Is the letter signed? If the sender cannot get the name of the site right, it weakens the letter. Copy-and-paste errors also matter, especially if they reference parts of a site you do not have.

Next comes the core of the letter.

Statement of Alleged Violations in an ADA Demand Letter

This section outlines the accessibility concerns the sender claims to have found. Some letters use short bullet points. Others include a short narrative explaining what action failed.

Many reference common issues such as:
- Missing alt text on images.
- Videos with no captions.
- Color contrast problems.
- Navigation barriers for keyboard users.
- Forms are missing labels or error messages.
The strongest letters include specific URLs, page names, or tasks that could not be completed. For example, could not submit the contact form due to missing labels. Or could not complete checkout because the keyboard could not reach the payment button. These details make validation easier.

Weaker letters may list generic issues with no URLs or no clear examples. That does not make them false. It simply means you will need a deeper technical review.

As you read this section, capture the issue, the page or feature, and the impact on the user. Those details help you understand the scope.

Requested Action in an ADA Demand Letter

This is the part where the sender lists what they want changed. It usually includes updates to code or templates, adding missing alt text, adding captions to videos, improving keyboard navigation, or correcting form issues. Some letters also ask for an accessibility statement or a better contact method.

Pay attention to how the request is phrased. Is the sender asking for fixes to a single part of the site or the entire site? Do they point to specific WCAG criteria or make broad references? Both are workable, but specifics help you establish a path for remediation.

Some letters offer clear, testable actions. Others mix clear requests with broad language. Capture each clear and testable action so your team knows what to validate.

Deadline and Next Steps

Most ADA demand letters provide a deadline. It might be framed as a request for a written response or a request for remediation within a set timeframe. Many mention possible escalation if the timeline is ignored.

Capture the deadline right away. Note whether they are asking for an acknowledgement or a full plan. Short deadlines create pressure, but they do not tell you how long it will take to fix the underlying issues. The timeline in a letter is not the full timeline for responsible remediation.

Legal References and Signature

This section usually includes ADA language along with WCAG references. Some letters cite specific success criteria. Others stay broad. WCAG criteria can help frame your validation work, but they are not always complete. Look at whether the issues described are specific enough to test.

A legitimate letter is usually signed and dated. Formatting should align with the rest of the content.

Is the Letter Real? A Quick Verification Checklist

You can often gauge credibility with a short review.
- Is your business name and website identified correctly in the letter?
- Are the sender’s details complete so you know who issued it?
- Is the deadline stated clearly and consistently?
- Do the listed barriers match actual pages or features on your site?
- Are there URLs or descriptions of which tasks that could not be completed?
- Is the letter properly signed and dated?
There are also green flags and red flags.

Green flags include specific examples, correct domain information, consistent formatting, and issue descriptions you can validate.

Red flags include wrong business names, mismatched domains, generic lists with no connection to your site, and pressure to pay right away.

If a letter appears credible, take it seriously. Capture the details. Validate the sender. Bring in legal counsel and the right internal stakeholders so you can review the claims with care and accuracy.

How to Move Ahead After an ADA Demand Letter Lands

Receiving a demand letter can unsettle any team, even those who already understand accessibility and ADA risk. But once you know how to read these letters, the tone shifts. You start to see the structure for what it is. A set of claims to review. A list of pages to check. A timeline to manage. A reminder that accessibility should be cared for across the full lifecycle of your site, not only when a letter arrives.

If you want support turning the findings from a letter into a clear plan, 216digital can help you integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap in a way that fits how your team works. To explore what that looks like in practice, you can schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing and talk through your goals with our accessibility experts.
Greg McNeil

January 15, 2026

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, Demand Letters, Website Accessibility
AI, Pro Se Plaintiffs, and the Rise of Web Accessibility Lawsuits
Digital accessibility is no longer enforced only by regulators or a small group of plaintiff firms. AI tools now make it easy for individuals to prepare and file complaints on their own, and web accessibility lawsuits are following. Cases arrive faster, with less context, and often land on teams that are already stretched.

The expectation itself has not changed. If a website has barriers that stop people from completing tasks, those barriers still matter, and courts continue to treat them as significant. What has changed is how quickly issues can be turned into legal action. Understanding how AI-generated complaints are assembled and why they are showing up more often helps teams respond with more control instead of reacting under pressure.

The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

A growing share of accessibility cases are now filed by individuals representing themselves. In legal terms, these filers are pro se plaintiffs. Pro se litigation has existed for a long time, but its role in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enforcement has expanded quickly.

In 2025, federal data shows a sharp rise in pro se ADA Title III filings, increasing about 40% over 2024 according to Seyfarth Shaw. This democratization of litigation means that anyone with access to a large language model and basic tools can generate a legally sufficient complaint, lowering the cost of entry that once required retaining an attorney.

For organizations, the enforcement landscape looks different from what it did a few years ago. Complaints now come from a larger mix of people and can appear in higher volume. Some raise legitimate barriers. Others arrive with long lists of issues that do not reflect how the site actually behaves. Either way, they require time, money, and attention from teams that rarely have extra capacity.

How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

AI-assisted complaints tend to follow a common pattern. The details vary, but the steps are similar.

Drafting the Complaint

A plaintiff starts by describing what happened and where. That narrative becomes a prompt. The AI tool returns a complaint with legal framing, structure, and citations modeled on previous filings. AI tools like ChatGPT and similar large language models can draft these complaints in minutes, generating legal language and structured allegations automatically.

Gathering “Evidence”

Free and low-cost accessibility scanners are used to crawl key pages. They surface potential barriers related to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and compile reports and screenshots.. These tools do not detect every barrier, and they can mislabel or overstate issues, but the output looks technical and complete. Those reports are often attached as primary exhibits.

Reusing Templates

Complaints that seem effective or are shared online often become templates. Names, URLs, and dates are updated, while large sections of text stay the same. This makes it easy to file similar complaints against many organizations with only small edits.

Filing Online

Electronic court portals allow filings to be submitted from anywhere. There is no need to schedule time with counsel or navigate in-person paperwork to start a case.

Taken together, these steps compress the process. Work that once took days or weeks can now happen in hours. For a small number of individuals, this efficiency makes high-volume filing possible. That is where many business owners feel the impact: not from a single complaint, but from the sense that they can be targeted repeatedly with little warning.

Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

Courts and defense teams are starting to recognize patterns that often suggest heavy AI involvement. These signals do not automatically invalidate a case, but they can help teams decide what to verify first.

Common signs include:

Citations That Do Not Exist

Some complaints reference cases that cannot be located in any legal database.

Misstated Holdings

The case is real, but the description of what the court decided is wrong or misleading.

Compressed Timelines

Lengthy, well-structured briefs appear very quickly, especially from non-lawyers who have limited experience with legal drafting.

Generic Lists of Barriers

The complaint lists issues that do not appear on the site, such as CAPTCHA problems when no CAPTCHA is used, or components that the interface does not rely on.

Mismatch Between Writing and Presentation

The legal documents read as if prepared by an experienced litigator, whereas the filer’s explanation in court or correspondence is far less sophisticated.

Even when these patterns are present, judges still look at the underlying question: are there real barriers that prevent people from using the site? For organizations, the practical response is to separate signal from noise. That means confirming which issues are genuine, technical but low impact, or exist only because an automated tool misread the interface. Time and budget are better spent on changes that fix real problems than on chasing every line of AI-generated text.

AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

AI is also changing assistive technology. Screen readers and related tools now use AI to generate richer image descriptions, interpret layouts, and infer relationships between elements. For some users, these improvements make certain sites more usable than they were a few years ago.

That progress does not change the legal standard. ADA enforcement focuses on whether the website or application itself is accessible. People are not required to rely on advanced or paid tools to get around avoidable barriers.

If someone using a common screen reader, keyboard navigation, or magnification tool cannot complete a task because of missing labels, incorrect semantics, or inaccessible controls, the barrier still exists. AI support tools do not erase that responsibility.

Courts are also starting to respond when AI is misused in filings. Some federal judges have sanctioned litigants for submitting materials that include fabricated cases or inaccurate citations, and in certain matters have restricted the use of AI in court filings altogether. These responses are still evolving, but they show that judges are paying attention to how AI is being applied in litigation.

From a risk perspective, it helps to treat AI-powered assistive tools as a supplement. They may help some users, but they do not replace the need for accessible design and development. They also do not insulate an organization from complaints if basic tasks remain inaccessible.

Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

Early data from Useablenet’s 2025 mid-year report shows more than 2,000 digital accessibility cases filed in the first half of the year, with projections approaching 5,000 by year’s end. A growing share of these web accessibility lawsuits involve AI-generated or AI-assisted complaints.

Most of these cases are not evenly spread across the web. They cluster in certain industries and patterns:
- E-commerce and transactional experiences
  Close to 70% of cases involve e-commerce sites. Product discovery, cart, and checkout flows draw attention because they are easy to test and directly tied to revenue.
- Mid-sized organizations
  Around 64% of cases involve companies with annual revenue of less than 25 million dollars. These organizations often have lean teams and limited internal legal support. That can make them appear more likely to settle quickly, which in turn can attract more filings.
- Sites using widgets and overlays
  More than 20% of recent cases involve sites that installed an accessibility overlay. Complaints often point out that the overlay did not fix underlying issues in templates, components, or key flows.
For executives and product leaders, the pattern is clear. AI is amplifying enforcement in environments where business-critical experiences are not fully accessible and where teams do not have a strong, documented accessibility program in place. The risk is not only the presence of barriers, but the combination of barriers and a filing landscape that now moves faster and at greater scale.

Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

In this environment, the most effective response is not to plan around individual cases, but to build a program that stands up to both user expectations and legal scrutiny.

Core elements include:

Anchor on WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Courts and regulators continue to lean on this standard when they evaluate access. Using it as your baseline keeps internal expectations aligned with external review.

Use Both Automated and Manual Testing

Automated tools are useful for catching common issues early and monitoring regressions, but they do not see everything. Manual testing with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, zoom, and voice tools gives a clearer picture of what people experience and highlights problems automation misses.

Prioritize Templates and Critical Flows

Start with navigation, search, account creation, forms, cart, and checkout. Improvements in these areas remove barriers that show up often in complaints and protect the journeys most tied to revenue and trust.

Integrate Accessibility Into Existing Workflows

Add practical checks into design reviews, code reviews, and QA. Keep them focused and repeatable so they fit into current processes. When accessibility is part of the way releases ship, it becomes harder for issues to build up unnoticed.

Document What You Are Doing

Keep records of audits, remediation work, training, vendor requirements, and standards for components and content. This documentation helps teams stay aligned and provides a concrete way to show effort if a demand letter or complaint arrives. Over time, this kind of documentation becomes one of the strongest defenses an organization can bring to the table when facing web accessibility lawsuits.

For leadership, this approach places accessibility in the same category as security and privacy: an ongoing operational responsibility. It also creates a clearer position when responding to AI-assisted complaints that blend legitimate issues with errors or overreach.

Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

When a complaint comes in, whether clearly AI-generated or not, the first goal is to reduce confusion and avoid unnecessary escalation.

Helpful steps include:

Validate the Issues

Test the specific barriers named in the complaint. Sort them into groups: incorrect claims, technically accurate but low-impact issues, and serious barriers that block tasks. This makes remediation plans more realistic and gives legal teams better information.

Review Citations and References

Confirm that cited cases exist and that the summaries are accurate. Flag problems so counsel can address them with the court or opposing party.

Avoid Rushed Surface Fixes

Installing a new overlay or making untested changes can introduce new issues or send a signal that accessibility is being treated as a checkbox. Focus on changes that are tested, documented, and consistent with your broader standards.

Feed Lessons Back Into the Program

Use what you learn to update components, patterns, and checks. Close gaps in design systems and QA so similar issues are less likely to reappear.

Handled this way, a complaint becomes part of an ongoing process rather than a series of disconnected emergencies.

Reducing Risk in an Era of AI-Generated Web Accessibility Lawsuits

The pace and shape of accessibility enforcement are changing, and no organization is fully prepared for the speed that AI has introduced into the process. Even teams that care about accessibility and make steady improvements can feel caught off guard when a complaint arrives that was drafted quickly and filed with little warning. You are not alone in that experience. Every industry is adjusting to a landscape where expectations remain familiar, but the mechanics are new.

There is still uncertainty in how digital Title III claims will evolve, especially as AI lowers the barrier to filing. What organizations can control is how they operate. Maintain a steady accessibility practice, align with established standards, and document decisions and remediation. That combination does not eliminate risk, but it holds up far better than reactive changes made under pressure and gives you a stronger footing when facing web accessibility lawsuits driven by AI.

If you need support building that foundation, we can help.

At 216digital, we can help develop a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap on your terms. To learn more about how our experts can help you confidently create and maintain an accessible website that supports both your business goals and the needs of your users, schedule a complementary ADA Strategy Briefing today.
Greg McNeil

December 16, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, ADA Website Compliance, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
ADA Title II vs. Title III: What’s the Difference?
Websites and mobile apps are now the primary way people access services, complete transactions, and manage information. For users who rely on assistive technology, accessibility determines whether those tasks can be completed at all.

As digital accessibility expectations continue to evolve, many organizations are reassessing how the ADA applies to their online services and overall ADA web accessibility requirements. In particular, teams are working to understand whether their websites, applications, and digital documents fall under Title II or Title III, especially as new Title II accessibility standards take effect this year and private enforcement activity under Title III continues to grow.

Below, we’ll explain where Title II and Title III apply online, what each title expects, and how those expectations connect to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, the primary benchmark for ADA website compliance. We’ll also outline the practical steps needed to meet those obligations so you can reduce legal risk while improving accessibility for the people who rely on your digital services.

Where Title II and Title III Fit in ADA Web Accessibility

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law enacted in 1990 to prevent discrimination and ensure access for people with disabilities. Early enforcement centered on buildings, transportation, and other physical spaces.

Today, much of that same activity happens online. People pay taxes, renew licenses, book appointments, manage benefits, and purchase services through websites and apps. In practice, those digital experiences carry the same access expectations as a front counter or an office doorway. ADA web accessibility requirements are now a core part of how access is measured.

The ADA is organized into five main titles.
- Title I addresses employment.
- Title II applies to state and local governments and their services.
- Title III applies to private businesses that serve the public.
- Other titles address areas such as telecommunications and enforcement.
For digital accessibility, Title II and Title III are the pieces that shape most decisions. A city website, a public university portal, or a transit app is treated as a public program. A retail site, a banking platform, or a healthcare portal is treated as a public accommodation. If your organization offers services online in either context, those experiences sit within the ADA’s scope. Misunderstanding which title applies does not change that responsibility, it only makes planning, prioritization, and risk management more difficult than it needs to be.

In real terms, that includes your public website, authenticated portals, mobile apps, online forms and workflows, PDFs and office files, embedded media players, chat tools, maps, and booking systems. If someone needs it to complete a task with you, it needs to be usable with assistive technologies and aligned with modern digital accessibility expectations.

Who Title II Covers for Government Web Accessibility

Title II applies to state and local government entities and to the programs and services they provide. That includes:
- City and state agency websites
- Public schools, colleges, and universities
- Public transit systems and trip-planning tools
- Courts, election portals, and public records systems
- Public hospitals, health departments, and benefit portals
Many of these services run on vendor-built platforms or include third-party modules for payments, scheduling, or forms. When a public entity relies on outside providers, accessibility responsibilities do not stop at the agency boundary. Agencies and vendors are responsible for delivering digital services that meet the same standards, so Title II web accessibility becomes a shared concern.

For public entities, federal requirements are now explicit. In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice set WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the accessibility benchmark for government websites and mobile applications and attached firm timelines:
- Larger entities must comply by April 24, 2026.
- Smaller entities and special districts must comply by April 26, 2027.
These expectations cover the full digital service, not just the main site. If a resident needs to complete a permit application, pay a bill, download a form, or check case status online, that journey needs to work with screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, and other assistive tools.

This has pushed many agencies to treat accessibility as part of digital governance rather than a side project. Design systems, content guidelines, vendor contracts, and remediation plans are being aligned to WCAG 2.1 Level AA because the standard is now clearly tied to Title II obligations. For public entities, there is no longer any ambiguity about the technical standard federal regulators will use when reviewing digital services or ADA web accessibility compliance.

How Title III Applies to Private Websites, Apps, and Digital Services

Title III covers public accommodations, which includes most private organizations that offer goods or services to the public. That list spans retail, eCommerce, hospitality, banking and financial services, healthcare, fitness and recreation, professional services, museums, and private colleges and universities.

The ADA does not write a technical accessibility standard into the text for these businesses. In practice, however, courts and the Department of Justice repeatedly look to WCAG 2.1 Level AA when they evaluate whether a site or app meets effective communication and equal access requirements. Website accessibility cases, including recent decisions that treat websites as places of public accommodation, are built around this expectation.

For many organizations, Title III shows up through demand letters, lawsuits, or settlement negotiations that center on digital journeys. The focus is rarely on a single static page. It is on flows that matter to customers:
- Is the full checkout flow usable for someone navigating with a screen reader?
- Can someone using a keyboard manage their account or update billing details?
- Are users able to schedule appointments, request support, or apply for services without getting stuck in the process?
If those paths fail, the business function fails for that user. That is the point where legal exposure increases and trust erodes. It is also where accessibility work is most visible to regulators, plaintiff firms, and users themselves.

There is no fixed federal deadline for private entities. Instead, risk is continuous. New campaigns, visual refreshes, marketing widgets, and third-party integrations can reintroduce barriers at any point. Building and maintaining alignment with WCAG 2.1 Level AA across your core templates, components, and user journeys is the most dependable way to manage Title III risk, support ADA website compliance, and serve users who rely on assistive technologies every day.

Shared Goals, Different Paths for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

Both titles are grounded in the same idea: people with disabilities should be able to use your services in a comparable way to everyone else. The gap lies in how expectations are spelled out and how they are enforced.

Under Title II, public entities have a defined technical standard and clear dates. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is written directly into federal requirements, which gives agencies a specific target for their websites and apps. That clarity supports long-term planning. Teams can tie budgets, staffing, and remediation schedules to a known expectation and build digital accessibility into their broader compliance programs.

Under Title III, technical details are shaped more by case law and agency guidance than by statute text. WCAG 2.1 Level AA still functions as the reference point, but it appears in consent decrees, settlement agreements, and court decisions. Private organizations have more freedom in how they build their accessibility programs, yet far less freedom in the outcome when users cannot complete essential tasks. The question regulators and courts ask is simple: can people with disabilities use the digital service as intended?

For your digital experience, this leads to the same practical conclusion. Accessibility work cannot stop at isolated pages or one-time audits. It needs to follow the paths users actually take:
- Finding content through navigation and search
- Signing in or creating an account
- Filling out and submitting forms
- Completing payments or purchases
- Accessing support, documentation, and media
If these journeys hold up for people using screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, magnification, voice input, and other assistive tools, you are in a stronger position under both Title II and Title III. That alignment also gives you a consistent way to talk about ADA compliance internally: not as a separate legal track, but as part of delivering reliable, accessible digital services.

A Practical Roadmap for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

To move from legal language to day-to-day work, you need a structure that fits how your teams already build and release digital products. The outline below can be adapted to the size and complexity of your environment.

1. Clarify How the ADA Applies to You

Determine whether you are operating as a public entity, a private business, a technology provider to public entities, or some mix of these. Document this clearly. It will shape which enforcement context applies, how you talk about risk internally, and what kind of evidence you need to demonstrate alignment with Title II or Title III and related ADA web accessibility requirements.

2. Map Your Full Digital Surface

List every public-facing asset a user might rely on. Include your main site, microsites, campaign pages, portals, mobile apps, and document libraries. Add the third-party pieces that sit in critical paths, such as booking engines, payment services, chat tools, video players, and embedded forms. If users depend on it to complete a task, it belongs in scope for accessibility work and ADA website compliance.

3. Audit Against WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Combine automated scanning with targeted manual testing. Use automation to find recurring issues across templates, such as color contrast problems, missing form labels, or non-descriptive link text. Use manual testing to check keyboard operation, screen reader behavior, focus handling in dialogs, error messages, and dynamic content. Start with the journeys that matter most to your organization and your users, such as account access, applications, and checkout.

For organizations looking for a structured model, you can explore our accessibility audit process, which shows how automated scans and expert testing work together.

4. Prioritize Remediation by Impact

Not every issue carries the same weight. Address blockers first by fixing controls that don’t respond to the keyboard, adding accessible labels to forms, correcting navigation that traps focus, and rebuilding interactive components with proper semantics.Then resolve issues that affect structure and consistency, such as heading hierarchy, landmark use, reusable component patterns, and document templates. This order improves usability quickly while also laying groundwork for long-term digital accessibility and maintainability.

5. Integrate Accessibility Into Delivery

Fold accessibility into existing processes instead of treating it as a separate layer. Add accessibility criteria to design reviews, user stories, acceptance criteria, and QA checklists. Make sure your design system or component library encodes WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations so new work inherits accessible patterns instead of reinventing them. This is how you prevent regressions instead of chasing them and keep ADA web accessibility requirements connected to everyday decisions.

6. Align People and Vendors Around Shared Expectations

Everyone who touches your digital experience plays a role, from visual design and UX to engineering, content creation, and testing. Provide role-specific guidance so each group understands the decisions they own. For external partners, write explicit accessibility requirements into contracts, including alignment with WCAG 2.1 Level AA and support for any Title II or Title III obligations you carry through that relationship.

7. Monitor, Document, and Adjust

Treat accessibility as an ongoing quality measure. Schedule regular scans and focused reviews, especially around major releases, redesigns, or platform changes. Track issues, fixes, and regressions alongside other key metrics. Provide a channel for users to report accessibility problems and treat that input as a signal for pattern-level improvements, not just small fixes. Thorough documentation of this work also helps demonstrate due diligence if your organization ever faces complaints or legal scrutiny around ADA website compliance.

Regardless of whether your primary obligations arise under Title II, Title III, or both, the goal is the same. People with disabilities should be able to use your digital services confidently and independently. Centering work on WCAG 2.1 Level AA, critical user journeys, and repeatable workflows gives you a practical way to honor that goal and meet your ADA web accessibility responsibilities at the same time.

Using Title II and Title III Insight to Shape Sustainable Accessibility

Accessibility work isn’t simple, and it rarely begins with a perfect map. Most teams step into it while juggling releases, supporting users, and keeping digital services running. Getting clear on whether Title II, Title III, or both apply gives that work direction. It removes guesswork and helps teams invest effort where it matters most.

From there, the work becomes more manageable. When teams clarify their obligations and anchor their work to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, they keep accessibility progressing with the platform rather than trailing it.

You don’t have to navigate that alone. At 216digital, we help organizations translate ADA requirements into practical accessibility strategies that fit their workflows, technical environments, and long-term goals. To take the next step, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. We’re here to support your team and help you build digital experiences that work for everyone.
Greg McNeil

December 15, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Title II, ADA Title III, ADA Website Compliance, Title II, Title III, Website Accessibility
Accessible WooCommerce Themes: Top Picks & What to Look For
When you pick a WooCommerce theme, you are not just choosing a layout. You are choosing how easy your store is to navigate, how clearly information is announced, and how much work it will take to keep things compliant over time. If you’re comparing accessible WooCommerce themes, the real question is not “Which one looks nicest?” but “Which one gives my customers the smoothest, most predictable path from homepage to checkout?”

Many teams choose under pressure: a redesign, a migration, or a branding push. It’s tempting to grab the first nice demo and plan to fix accessibility later. In practice, this creates more rework, more risk, and more frustration for users who rely on assistive technology.

You can quickly bring accessibility into your theme decision. Add structure, make targeted checks, and know your priorities to move forward with confidence.

Why Your Theme Choice Shapes More Than Just Design

A WooCommerce theme controls more than colors and fonts. It ships with its own templates, layout decisions, and code patterns. That means it shapes:
- How screen readers move through your pages
- What paths do keyboard users take to reach menus, filters, and checkout?
- How your store behaves on small screens and at high zoom
- How easy it is to keep things maintainable as you grow
Starting from one of the stronger accessible WooCommerce themes puts you ahead in several ways. You spend less time fixing basic issues, see fewer regressions when plugins update, and send a clear signal to customers that your store is built for them—not just for aesthetics. It can also reduce legal risk, because you are closer to what laws and guidelines expect when they reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Accessibility is not only an ethical choice; it is a business one. Sites that are easier to use convert better, generate fewer support tickets, and are less likely to be named in a lawsuit. For many teams, “accessible by default” is simply a smarter way to protect brand, revenue, and reputation simultaneously.

What “Accessible” Really Means in Practice

Guidelines like WCAG exist to turn a big idea—“everyone should be able to use the web”—into concrete checks. Over the years, WCAG has evolved (2.0, 2.1, 2.2), and most legal frameworks point to at least Level AA as the baseline. Level AAA is more stringent and often not practical for full ecommerce flows, so most teams aim for AA and build from there.

You do not have to memorize every success criterion, but it helps to know what a theme should support. Think of it through four simple lenses:
- Perceivable: Text has strong contrast, scales well, and is not buried in images. Important images have alt text. Links are descriptive rather than repeating “Learn more” 10 times, so people know where they are going.
- Operable: Menus, filters, dialogs, sliders, and forms work with a keyboard alone. Focus is always visible. Nothing traps people in a pop-up, mini-cart, or off-screen menu. Moving content can be paused or controlled instead of constantly sliding past.
- Understandable: Labels and instructions are clear. Errors explain what went wrong and how to fix it. Navigation and headings follow predictable patterns from page to page, so shoppers do not have to constantly re-learn how your site works.
- Robust: The HTML uses proper headings, landmarks, and controls. ARIA is applied thoughtfully, not sprinkled everywhere. The store works with screen readers, zoom, and narrow viewports, and does not fall apart when the browser or assistive tech changes.
If a theme gives you a solid start on all four, you are in a much better place than a design-first theme that just happens to “look clean.”

Common Problems You’ll See When You Test Themes

One thing that often surprises teams: many themes that market themselves as “accessible” still have rough edges. Even themes promoted as accessible WooCommerce themes can struggle with basics when you look beyond the promo page.

The most frequent trouble spots include:
- Weak or missing keyboard navigation
  No skip links, no focus outline, menus that cannot be opened with a keyboard, or dropdowns that open on hover only. Sometimes you can tab into a menu but never back out cleanly.
- Code issues behind the scenes
  Missing labels, misused landmarks, custom controls built from generic <div> elements, or error messages that never get announced. Cart updates might happen visually but remain invisible to screen readers.
- Design choices that work visually, but not accessibly
  Low-contrast buttons on hero images, very small text, or links that are only distinguished by color. On a large monitor, these might look elegant; on a smaller laptop or with aging eyesight, they become a barrier.
- E-commerce-specific gaps
  Product ratings hidden from assistive tech, price filters that only work with a mouse, or variation selectors that cannot be reached with the keyboard. Sometimes a “quick view” or slide-out cart steals focus and never gives it back.
Seeing one of these issues is not a reason to abandon a theme right away. Seeing many of them together usually indicates that your time is better spent on a different starting point.

WooCommerce Themes With Better Built-In Accessibility

No theme is perfect out of the box, but some give you a better baseline than others. Below are themes that often get teams closer than most other accessible WooCommerce themes right out of the box. You should still test any version you plan to use, along with your plugin stack, but these tend to show stronger intent.

Storefront

Built by the WooCommerce team, Storefront is deliberately simple and stable. It includes skip links, workable keyboard navigation, and a product-focused layout. You will likely want to layer on your own design system, but the structural choices are solid, which is exactly what you want from a base theme.

Neve

Neve balances flexibility with fairly clean markup. It usually includes proper landmarks, readable typography, and skip-to-content links. When you change colors or layouts, re-run contrast checks and re-test menus and headers—especially any mega menus or sticky headers you introduce.

Responsive

Responsive tends to perform well with responsive layouts, spacing, and contrast-friendly presets. Skip links and keyboard navigation are present, though imported template kits should always be checked individually. Some ready-made layouts might be less robust than the core theme, so treat them as starting points, not guaranteed safe patterns.

OceanWP

Popular for performance and options, OceanWP supports skip links and keyboard-friendly dropdowns. Focus on visibility and contrast, as they can vary depending on configuration. Harden them early in your build and keep a close eye on badges, secondary buttons, and sale labels.

Eimear and Monument Valley

Eimear and Monument Valley are known for prioritizing accessibility in their design. Multiple skip links, structured navigation, and responsive templates are common strengths. Dynamic pieces like filters, accordions, or cart notices still need real-world testing, but you are starting from a posture that takes accessibility more seriously than most.

The point of a shortlist is not to promise perfection; it is to avoid starting from a theme that fights you at every turn.

How to Vet a Theme’s Accessibility Quickly

Once you have a few candidates, you can move beyond marketing pages and see how each one behaves in practice. Use this checklist when you are evaluating accessible WooCommerce themes in the wild:

Do a Full Keyboard Tour

From the browser’s address bar, tab through the header, navigation, product grid, product detail page, cart, and checkout. Make sure you can see focus at every step and that ESC closes any open menu or modal. If you lose track of focus or end up “stuck” in an element, note it as a real risk.

Check Headings and Landmarks

Look for one main heading per page and a logical order beneath it. Confirm that regions like navigation, main content, and footer are clearly defined and not duplicated in confusing ways. This is what screen reader users rely on to jump around the page.

Test Forms and Messages

Add something to the cart. Trigger a form error. Apply a coupon. Ask: Is the feedback clear both visually and for screen readers? Does anything important happen silently? Error messages that only appear as red text, with no programmatic link to the field, are a common pattern to flag.

Zoom and Shrink

View the site at 200% zoom and at a narrow mobile width. Nothing important should overlap, spill off-screen, or become unreachable. Pay special attention to sticky headers, floating chat widgets, and fixed promos that can hide content when zoomed.

You can supplement this with quick automated checks (for example, running a browser extension or audit tool against the demo), but those should confirm your observations—not replace hands-on testing. If a theme passes this quick pass with only small issues, it is usually worth deeper evaluation.

Fixing Gaps When Your Theme Is “Almost There”

In most cases, you will end up choosing a theme that is “good, but not perfect.” That is normal. Once you have picked one of the more accessible WooCommerce themes, you will almost always still find gaps during real testing.

A practical way to tighten things up:
- Start with built-in controls.
  Use the theme’s and Site Editor’s options for color, typography, and spacing to fix contrast and legibility problems. This is usually the fastest way to bring large pieces of the site into alignment.
- Strengthen focus
  Add CSS to make focus rings thick, high-contrast, and consistent across all interactive elements. If you can see it clearly from a distance, a customer is far less likely to get lost.
- Swap custom elements for native ones.
  Replace “clickable divs” with actual buttons or links. Use real form fields for filters and variations. Native elements carry a lot of built-in accessibility that you do not have to re-create from scratch.
- Improve complex widgets
  For menus, tabs, accordions, and sliders, follow established patterns and then test with a keyboard and a screen reader. Focus moves, aria-expanded states, and visible labels all need to line up.
- Keep your plugin list lean.
  Every extra plugin is another chance to introduce inaccessible markup or conflicting scripts. Audit your plugin stack and remove anything you are not actively using.
When you identify gaps, prioritize fixes based on where money moves: product lists, product details, cart, and checkout first. Document the patterns you fix and treat them as reusable building blocks. That prevents the same problems from creeping back in later.

How to Maintain Accessibility After Launch

Even a well-built store can drift out of alignment over time. New campaigns, landing pages, and plugins all add risk. Treat accessible WooCommerce themes as a foundation, not a finish line.

Simple habits help:
- Run quick keyboard checks after theme or plugin updates.
- Keep short, clear guidelines for alt text, link text, and headings
- Schedule light accessibility spot checks before major campaigns
- Offer small refreshers for anyone who creates or edits content.
- Add a short accessibility checklist to your release process so changes get a quick sanity check before going live.
These steps do not require a full rebuild, but they do keep your store usable and reduce surprises.

Your Theme Is the Start—Accessibility Is Ongoing

Choosing a WooCommerce theme is one of the earliest—and most important—accessibility decisions you make. The right foundation can support better customer experiences, smoother growth, and lower risk. The wrong one can lock you into constant workarounds.

You do not have to solve every detail up front, but you can put your store on a stronger path by choosing a theme with accessibility in mind, testing it as a real customer would, and making small, steady improvements as you go.

If you would like a second set of expert eyes on your shortlist—or a clear picture of how your current theme holds up—schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. We will review real storefront flows, call out the highest-impact fixes, and map out a practical path toward WCAG-aligned accessibility and better conversions.
Greg McNeil

November 25, 2025

Legal Compliance, Web Accessibility Remediation

Web Accessibility, web developers, web development, Website Accessibility, WooCommerce, WooCommerce themes, WordPress
ADA Lawsuits: Can You Be Sued Again During Remediation?
When a business gets pulled into ADA lawsuits over its website, the first instinct is usually simple: “Fix it, fast.” Very quickly, though, another question creeps in:

If we’re already working on remediation, can we still be sued again?

The uncomfortable answer is yes. Separate people—or advocacy groups—can still bring their own claims while you’re actively fixing issues. The ADA is a public civil rights law, and it doesn’t include a universal “grace period” that pauses legal exposure once remediation begins.

That can feel discouraging, especially when your team is putting in real effort and genuinely wants to do the right thing. But this isn’t about punishing good intentions. At its core, the law is about access—whether people with disabilities can truly use your site to browse, book, buy, and get support without barriers.

The good news is that you’re not stuck. Once you understand how courts look at “remediation in progress,” you can make clearer decisions, reduce risk, and turn a stressful situation into a structured, manageable plan.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Always work with qualified legal counsel on your specific situation.

Now, let’s take a quick step back and look at how the ADA applies to websites in the first place—because that context matters when you’re facing ongoing legal pressure.

ADA, Websites, & Why Compliance Isn’t a One-Time Box To Check

Before diving further into repeat claims, it helps to ground the conversation in how the law actually views digital experiences.

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

Under ADA Title III (and sometimes Title II), many businesses qualify as “places of public accommodation.” Today, websites and apps serve as the digital front door to those spaces.

When a website’s design prevents a person with a disability from completing basic tasks—such as checking out, booking a service, logging in, or accessing essential information—the law treats that breakdown as a genuine access barrier. Courts and the U.S. Department of Justice have repeatedly compared inaccessible websites to physical locations with no ramp or blocked entrances.

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

The ADA itself does not spell out one specific technical standard for web accessibility. In practice, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) —most often WCAG 2.1 Level AA—has become the widely accepted benchmark.

When teams say a site is “compliant,” they’re typically referring to two things:
- The site substantially aligns with WCAG, and
- Users can complete core journeys—searching, browsing, signing in, purchasing, contacting support, and accessing their accounts—without major barriers.
Why Websites Are Vulnerable To Repeated Claims

Here’s where things get especially tricky: websites are never truly “finished.”

Marketing launches new campaigns. Developers add plugins and redesign layouts. Content teams upload images, PDFs, and promotional banners. Each update creates a fresh opportunity for accessibility gaps, even after earlier fixes.

A missing alt tag here, a mislabeled button there, a keyboard trap inside a modal—small changes can quietly reopen doors that had just been closed. This constant movement explains why multiple people can run into similar problems over time.

With that backdrop, we can return to the central concern: what actually happens when you’re already fixing your site and a new legal claim lands anyway?

Can You Face New ADA Lawsuits While You’re Fixing Things?

This is the question that keeps most teams up at night—and unfortunately, the answer isn’t as comforting as anyone would like.

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

Legally speaking, there’s no built-in pause button. Courts focus on what happened when a specific person tried to use your site.

If that individual encountered meaningful barriers at that moment, the fact that your team is actively making improvements doesn’t erase their experience. From the court’s perspective, access is evaluated in real time.

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

Each person with a disability has their own potential claim. If one blind user files a lawsuit over an inaccessible checkout, that doesn’t automatically prevent another blind user—or a user with a different disability—from bringing a similar claim later.

Likewise, settling with one plaintiff does not “cover” everyone else. Unless the settlement takes the form of a formal court order with clearly defined terms, other parties can still assert their own rights if they encounter the same barriers.

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

In practice, this often shows up as a mix of:
- Informal demand letters,
- Formal lawsuits filed in court, and
- Occasional regulatory attention or guidance from agencies like the DOJ.
Dealing with all of this at once is one of the reasons a structured, documented remediation plan is far more effective than scattered one-off fixes.

Haynes v. Hooters

This case shows why “we’re working on it” doesn’t automatically stop new claims. Hooters had already settled a prior ADA website case and agreed to make its site accessible. When a different blind plaintiff later sued over similar barriers, Hooters argued that the new case was moot because of that earlier settlement and its remediation plans.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed and allowed the new case to move forward. The court explained that promises made to someone else—and plans for future fixes—did not guarantee accessibility for this new plaintiff or long-term compliance.

In practical terms, remediation helps, but it isn’t a shield on its own if barriers still exist.

At this point, the natural follow-up question is: if remediation doesn’t automatically block claims, why does it still matter so much?

What Courts And Opposing Counsel Actually Look At

When the legal arguments fade into the background, most cases come down to a few very practical questions.

Two Moments That Matter Most

Courts tend to focus on two key points in time:
- When the plaintiff attempted to use your site, and
- The condition of the site at the time the court reviews the case.
If barriers existed at the time of the visit, liability may still exist for that experience—even if fixes came later. Once teams fully resolve those exact barriers, some claims may become “moot,” but that outcome does not undo the time, cost, and disruption earlier ADA lawsuits created.

When Remediation Can Strengthen Your Position

In Diaz v. The Kroger Co., the court dismissed the case after Kroger demonstrated that:
- All specific barriers named in the complaint had been fixed, and
- The website now conforms to WCAG 2.0 AA, the standard cited in that lawsuit.
The lesson here is simple: to argue mootness successfully, you need more than a promise. You need proof that the barriers are gone and that controls exist to keep them from coming back.

Patterns Vs. Isolated Mistakes

Courts and plaintiffs don’t just look for one broken button. They look for patterns. Are similar problems scattered across numerous pages? Is there any sign of training, audits, or an accessibility policy?

A site with a few lingering issues and a visible program in place looks very different from a site where accessibility has never been part of the process.

Documentation As Protection

Process matters. Documentation that often proves useful includes:
- Date-stamped audit reports and issue lists,
- Prioritized remediation roadmaps,
- Tickets, pull requests, and QA sign-offs tied to accessibility work,
- Notes from manual testing and assistive technology sessions.
None of this guarantees a win, but it gives your legal team something concrete to stand on.

From here, the focus shifts to what courts often refer to as “good-faith effort,” and what that looks like in the real world.

What “Good-Faith Effort” Looks Like In Practice

Good faith isn’t just a statement—it’s visible through consistent action.

Start With A Full, Expert-Led Audit

Rather than chasing bugs at random, it’s far more effective to begin with a thorough accessibility audit aligned to WCAG 2.1 AA or higher. That audit should evaluate:
- Core templates and layouts,
- Checkout, booking, and account flows,
- Forms, navigation, and interactive components,
- Third-party tools used in key user journeys.
Automated tools can help surface issues, but they don’t tell the whole story. Manual testing with keyboard navigation and screen readers is essential.

Prioritize The Issues That Truly Block Users

Once issues are identified, triage becomes critical. Blocking problems should come first, including:
- Navigation that can’t be operated with a keyboard,
- Buttons and icons with no accessible name,
- Forms without usable labels and error messages,
- Components that trap focus.
Fixing these first doesn’t just help legally—it immediately improves day-to-day usability.

Build A Realistic Remediation Roadmap

Strong remediation doesn’t happen in chaos. It usually happens in phases:
- 1: Critical path fixes,
- 2: Broader WCAG alignment,
- 3: Long-term safeguards in design systems and QA workflows.
A roadmap like this keeps teams aligned and gives leadership and counsel clarity on progress.

Communicate With Users—Carefully And Honestly

Many organizations choose to publish an accessibility statement during remediation. When handled well, it can:
- Acknowledge ongoing improvements,
- Invite users to report issues, and
- Provide support channels for assistance.
This should always be coordinated with legal counsel, but it clearly signals that accessibility is being taken seriously.

At this point, the technical work is underway. Now the focus shifts to how that work connects with legal strategy.

Navigating ADA Lawsuits While Improving Your Website

Accessibility remediation works best when legal and technical teams are aligned.

Keep Legal Counsel Closely Involved

Sharing your audit findings and remediation plans allows attorneys to:
- Respond more effectively if new ADA lawsuits or demand letters arrive.
- Decide when to highlight remediation progress.
- Assess whether tools like consent decrees are appropriate.
Handling Communications With Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

If another letter arrives mid-remediation, it’s important not to ignore it—or respond emotionally. Instead, work through counsel to acknowledge the concerns, share progress when helpful, and prioritize any legitimate issues that are identified.

Avoid Moves That Look Like Avoidance

Fast platform swaps, taking large parts of the site offline, or making bold public promises without proof can backfire. These moves often frustrate users and may not hold up in court if barriers reappear once the site returns.

Even with careful planning, a few common mistakes can keep organizations stuck in a cycle of repeat claims.

Common Missteps That Invite Repeat Claims

Many organizations facing ADA lawsuits don’t fail because they don’t care—they fail because they rely on shortcuts.

Relying Only On “Quick-Fix” Tools

Overlay tools and widgets often sound appealing under pressure, but they typically do not correct underlying code issues and can conflict with assistive technologies.

Treating Accessibility As An Afterthought

Holiday campaigns, product launches, and page redesigns are frequent sources of regressions when accessibility checks are skipped under tight timelines.

Ignoring Content And Third-Party Risk

Images without alt text, untagged PDFs, and third-party widgets all introduce new exposure if left unmanaged.

These issues point toward the need for a longer-term approach, not just a one-time cleanup.

Turning Remediation Into A Long-Term Accessibility Program

Once early fires are under control, the focus shifts to sustainability.

Accessible design systems, standardized testing processes, team training, and ongoing monitoring all help prevent regressions. Building accessibility directly into your site—rather than adding it only after complaints—significantly reduces your risk of future ADA lawsuits.

At that point, accessibility stops being a crisis response and becomes part of responsible digital operations.

Moving Forward Without the Constant “What If”

It can be frustrating to learn that more than one of these ADA lawsuits can land even while you’re actively fixing your site. But that doesn’t mean you’re doomed to keep reliving the same cycle. When accessibility becomes part of how you design, build, and maintain your digital experiences—not just something you scramble to address when a letter arrives—the entire situation starts to change.

The real shift is from reacting to planning. Instead of asking, “How do we get through this one case?” you begin asking, “How do we make accessibility a normal, manageable part of how we operate?” That mindset, backed by real remediation, documentation, and monitoring, is what gives you a steadier footing—for your users and in any future legal conversations.

If you’re unsure where you stand or what to prioritize next, this is exactly where 216digital can help. We’re a web development agency with deep expertise in web accessibility, and we offer personalized ADA briefings designed to help small businesses understand their obligations, assess their exposure, and chart a practical path forward.
Greg McNeil

November 19, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, ADA non-compliance, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
How Good Is Your Mobile Accessibility, Really?
Mobile accessibility isn’t just about conforming to WCAG guidelines. With most users browsing on phones and tablets, it’s essential that your designs scale, respond, and support every interaction with ease. For teams building interactive components like tabs, modals, and accordions, mobile behavior and overall mobile accessibility are just as important as how things look on a large desktop screen.

Even small design and coding choices — like touch target sizing, color contrast, or label structure — can make the difference between a smooth, intuitive experience and a frustrating one. In this article, we’ll walk through practical ways to fold accessibility into your everyday workflow so every tap, scroll, and swipe feels natural, predictable, and inclusive.

Start with a Solid Responsive Framework

Use Flexible Layout and Relative Units

Building accessibility starts with flexible design foundations. A responsive framework ensures that your layout, text, and controls adapt fluidly to any screen size or orientation. Strong responsive foundations are one of the easiest ways to improve mobile accessibility before you write a single line of JavaScript.

Use relative units like em, rem, %, or vw/vh instead of fixed pixel values. This allows text and elements to scale naturally when users zoom in or change device settings. Avoid rigid containers that break under different resolutions — instead, rely on CSS Grid or Flexbox to help content reflow cleanly.

Set the Viewport and Respect Zoom

Always set your viewport meta tag correctly. Add:

<meta name=”viewport” content=”width=device-width, initial-scale=1″>

This ensures your content fits the screen properly while allowing users to zoom. Never disable user scaling — it’s essential for users with low vision who need to enlarge content.

Test Orientation Changes Early

As your layout takes shape, test orientation changes early. Rotate your device between portrait and landscape to catch:
- Broken layouts
- Cropped images
- Misplaced or partially hidden buttons
Fixing these issues early in the process is far easier than patching them close to launch.

Use Responsive Testing Tools

Finally, make full use of your testing tools. Browser DevTools, responsive modes in Chrome and Edge, and cross-device testing platforms like BrowserStack can help confirm that your site behaves predictably across a range of screens and devices, not just your test phone.

Make Touch Interaction Effortless

Design for Comfortable Tap Targets

Touch interaction is where mobile accessibility truly lives. If users struggle to tap, swipe, or input data, your design loses usability fast — especially in dense interface patterns like accordions and tab sets, where every tap needs to land reliably.

Keep these principles in mind:
- Size matters: Interactive targets should be at least 44x44px (about 7–10mm) — the recommended minimum to help prevent accidental taps.
- Give everything breathing room: Provide enough padding between buttons, links, and icons so people can tap comfortably without frustration.
Keep Gestures Simple and Discoverable

Avoid complex or multi-finger actions without alternatives. Not all users can perform pinch or long-press gestures, so offer single-tap controls or visible UI options that accomplish the same function.

Make Forms Clear and Supportive

When designing forms, think ease and clarity:
- Use tap-friendly toggles, switches, and radio buttons where possible — they’re easier to use than long text fields for many tasks.
- Support autofill so users don’t have to retype predictable information.
- Add clear labels, and use aria-describedby for inline help or error messages so users understand what’s needed without guessing.
Respect Reach and Alternate Inputs
- Think about reach: Frequent actions like “Next” or “Submit” should sit within the natural thumb zone — generally the middle to lower part of the screen.
- Plan for alternate inputs: Make sure your mobile experience is fully navigable using keyboards, styluses, and switch devices. A touch-friendly site should still work well for users who rely on other interaction methods.
When these patterns are in place, complex interactions — including accordions — feel lighter, more predictable, and less error-prone on small screens.

Use Relative Units for Scalable Text and Elements

Scalable typography is one of the simplest ways to improve readability and accessibility. Replacing absolute pixel values with relative units helps your design adapt to user zoom and different display settings.

A few practical habits:
- Favor relative units: Use rem, em, %, and vw/vh for type and spacing rather than fixed pixel values.
- Test at 200% zoom: Zoom your interface to 200%. Text should remain readable, and your layout should stay intact. If it doesn’t, adjust spacing, line height, or font scaling strategies.
- Lean on fluid type: Adopt fluid typography using modern CSS. The clamp() function lets type scale gracefully across screen sizes:
  font-size: clamp(1rem, 2vw + 0.5rem, 1.5rem);
- Avoid fixed positioning for essential content: Pop-ups, modals, or sticky elements should reflow naturally instead of overlapping or disappearing when users zoom or rotate their device.
When text and key UI elements can scale without breaking the layout, more people can comfortably read and interact with your content — regardless of their device or settings.

Build Consistency Into Layout and Navigation

A predictable interface builds user confidence. When navigation, buttons, forms, and interactive patterns like accordions behave consistently, users can move through your app or site with less cognitive load and fewer surprises.

To support that predictability:
- Use semantic HTML to describe structure: Elements like <header>, <nav>, <main>, and <footer> help screen readers and assistive technologies understand your page organization automatically.
- Label icons and actions clearly: If a button uses only an icon, include a descriptive aria-label so its purpose is announced reliably.
- Keep the order and flow logical: Consistent menu placement and button order reduce the learning curve and make navigation easier for everyone.
- Standardize components: Consider building a shared design system or component library. When your buttons, forms, modals, and accordions are built with accessibility baked in, those best practices carry forward across every project and release and directly support stronger mobile accessibility in your product.
Consistency is what turns individual accessibility improvements into a cohesive, trustworthy experience across your entire product.

Refine Color Contrast and Visual Hierarchy

Meet Contrast Ratios for Text and UI

Color plays a big role in mobile readability. Good contrast ensures visibility across different lighting conditions and for users with color vision deficiencies.

Follow the WCAG contrast standards:
- 4.5:1 for normal text
- 3:1 for large text and UI components
- 3:1 minimum for icons, borders, and input outlines
Beyond ratios, test your designs under real-world lighting:
- Bright sunlight
- Dim rooms
- Dark mode
Mobile users interact in unpredictable environments, and contrast that looks great on your monitor may fail in the field.

Use More Than Color to Convey Meaning
- Don’t rely on color alone. Combine color with icons, text, or patterns — for example, pair error messages with red outlines and clear, descriptive text.
- Use hierarchy to guide attention. Thoughtful spacing, font weight, and color contrast help users quickly understand relationships between elements and scan content without extra effort.
Tools like Stark, WebAIM’s Contrast Checker, or built-in accessibility plugins in Figma and Sketch can help you validate your palette before development begins, so you’re not chasing contrast issues late in the cycle.

Provide Strong Text Alternatives

Every image, icon, and multimedia element needs a meaningful text alternative. This is foundational work that has a direct impact on how usable your experience is with assistive technology.

Good practices include:
- Alt text with purpose: Use alt text that describes the content or function of an image. If it’s purely decorative, leave the alt attribute empty so screen readers can skip it.
- Captions and transcripts for multimedia: Even short video clips benefit from lightweight subtitles or transcripts, especially for users in noisy or very quiet environments.
- Name icon-only controls: If your app relies on icons alone, use aria-label or aria-labelledby attributes so each control can be understood by assistive technology.
For expanding sections and other interactive disclosures, accuracy and clarity matter:
- Ensure expanded/collapsed states are exposed to assistive tech.
- Make sure focus moves in a way that feels intuitive for screen reader and keyboard users.
- Confirm that each trigger or header clearly describes the content it reveals.
Validate with Screen Readers

Before launch, run a screen reader check using VoiceOver (iOS) or TalkBack (Android). Listen to how your app is announced — are the labels clear, logical, and concise? If not, revise until the experience feels straightforward and reliable.

Strong text alternatives and well-labeled controls are some of the most important building blocks of mobile accessibility, especially for users who rely on screen readers to navigate touch screens.

Integrate Accessibility Into the Development Process

Start Accessibility Reviews Early

The most sustainable way to maintain accessibility is to make it part of your normal workflow, not an afterthought.

Start early:
- Evaluate accessibility during wireframes or prototypes, not only after development.
- Validate color contrast, layout flow, and focus order while the structure is still flexible — including how components behave for users who depend on assistive tech.
Add Accessibility Checks to Your Pipeline

Automate where it makes sense:
- Use tools like WAVE or Lighthouse in your CI/CD pipeline to catch common accessibility issues before code review.
- Treat failures as signals to improve your shared components and patterns, rather than one-off fixes.
Balance Automation with Manual Testing

But don’t rely on automation alone:
- Automation can’t replicate real user interactions.
- Test with screen readers, high-contrast settings, and keyboard-only navigation.
- Include scenarios that specifically cover key mobile flows — forms, navigation menus, and high-traffic interactive components — alongside other critical interactions.
Make Accessibility a Shared Responsibility

Remember, accessibility is a team effort. Designers, developers, and QA testers should all share visibility into accessibility requirements and results, and understand how their work affects users with disabilities.

Finally, document and iterate:
- Keep a living accessibility checklist for your team.
- Note what worked, what failed, and what needs refinement in future sprints so patterns like menus, dialogs, and other interactive components continue to improve and reinforce mobile accessibility over time.
Keep Improving — and Get Expert Support When You Need It

Accessibility isn’t a finish line. It evolves with new technologies, operating systems, and user expectations. Revisit your mobile experience regularly, especially after framework, library, or OS updates.

Make a habit of:
- Gathering real-world user feedback, especially from people who rely on assistive technology.
- Comparing that feedback with automated test results to uncover gaps that tools miss.
- Continuing to test, train, and refine your approach so accessibility remains second nature for your entire team.
Partner with Experts When It Matters

If you’re ready to strengthen your mobile accessibility strategy and build experiences that feel natural across screen sizes and devices, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. Our team helps you identify hidden barriers, streamline your workflow, and build digital experiences that stay inclusive across every screen size.
Greg McNeil

October 29, 2025

Legal Compliance, Testing & Remediation

Accessibility, mobile accessibility, mobile apps, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
ADA and Unruh Act: The Recipe for Huge Settlements
Over the past decade, more companies have been blindsided by accessibility lawsuits carrying price tags in the hundreds of thousands—or even millions. The culprit isn’t just the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In many cases, it’s the ADA combined with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act).

Each law was written to protect people with disabilities and promote equal access. But together, they’ve become a powerful tool for legal action, especially in California, where plaintiffs can seek statutory damages. What often begins as a small accessibility oversight—a missing alt tag or an inaccessible entrance—can escalate quickly once both laws are involved.

This article breaks down how the ADA and Unruh Act overlap, why class actions magnify the risk, and what practical steps businesses can take to reduce exposure and protect their reputation.

Two Laws, One Powerful Combination

Understanding why this pairing leads to such large settlements starts with how each law operates.

The ADA: A Federal Baseline for Accessibility

Passed in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act set the national standard for accessibility. It prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires that businesses, public agencies, and digital services be accessible to everyone.

Under Title III, that means:
- Removing barriers in buildings and parking lots
- Maintaining accessible routes and signage
- Making digital platforms—like websites and apps—usable with assistive technology
Violating the ADA generally results in a court order to fix the issue, not a payout to the plaintiff. That changes under California law.

The Unruh Act: California’s Added Layer of Risk

California’s Unruh Act goes further than the ADA. Enacted in 1959, it bans discrimination on many grounds—disability among them—and allows plaintiffs to claim statutory damages, usually $4,000 per violation.

Here’s where it becomes significant: under California law, a violation of the ADA automatically counts as a violation of the Unruh Act. That link gives plaintiffs the right to seek financial damages for what would otherwise be a non-monetary ADA claim.

In practice, one missed accessibility requirement in California can generate dual claims—federal and state—and quickly turn into a costly lawsuit.

When One Claim Becomes Hundreds: The Class Action Multiplier

A single violation may not break a company. A class action might.

Under the Unruh Act, damages apply per person, per incident. So if one user encounters an inaccessible website form, that’s $4,000. If 500 people encounter it, the number multiplies fast.

California courts often enhance damages further when multiple plaintiffs share the same experience. What starts as a small issue—such as poor contrast or an inaccessible navigation menu—can balloon into a multimillion-dollar settlement.

That’s why the class-action mechanism is considered the biggest financial threat for companies operating in or serving customers from California.

State-Level Accessibility Laws on the Rise

California may have started the trend, but other states are following suit. New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois have strengthened their accessibility laws in ways that complement or exceed federal standards.

Many of these laws now reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)—the same international standards used to measure digital accessibility. That means:
- Websites and mobile apps are increasingly part of compliance expectations.
- State and federal claims can overlap, increasing exposure.
- A single accessibility gap can violate multiple laws at once.
This expanding patchwork of regulations makes compliance more complicated. Businesses that operate nationally need to keep a close eye on both federal rules and the evolving state-level requirements that mirror the Unruh Act.

How Small Gaps Turn Into Large Settlements

Accessibility lawsuits rarely start with large systemic failures. More often, they begin with something small.
- A faded accessibility sign in a parking lot
- A checkout button that can’t be reached with a keyboard
- A product image missing alt text
Individually, these might seem like minor oversights. In California, they can qualify as Unruh Act violations and open the door to class actions.

Law firms that specialize in accessibility cases actively scan websites and physical locations for these gaps. And since digital platforms are constantly updated—with new themes, plugins, or content—accessibility issues can reappear even after remediation.

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

Addressing accessibility proactively isn’t just a legal safeguard—it’s good business practice. The steps below can help reduce the likelihood of a claim under the ADA or Unruh Act.

1. Conduct Regular Accessibility Audits

Schedule audits for both your physical spaces and your digital properties. An experienced accessibility partner can evaluate:
- Entrances, parking areas, restrooms, and signage
- Website structure, navigation, and color contrast
- App functionality and compatibility with assistive tools
Audits help identify issues before they reach a courtroom.

2. Strengthen Digital Accessibility

Digital accessibility lawsuits are among the fastest-growing categories. To stay compliant:
- Follow WCAG 2.1 AA standards.
- Test with screen readers and keyboard navigation.
- Review every update—new features can reintroduce barriers.
Working with a web accessibility partner like 216digital ensures your compliance strategy evolves alongside your website.

3. Train Staff Across Departments

Accessibility shouldn’t live in a single department. Train employees—from developers to front-desk staff—to recognize and report accessibility barriers. Regular refreshers keep awareness high and prevent accidental noncompliance.

4. Create a Clear Response Plan

When someone reports an accessibility problem, how your team responds matters.
- Acknowledge the concern right away.
- Communicate a plan and timeline for fixing it.
- Document your actions.
That kind of transparency can resolve most issues before legal action begins.

5. Explore Legal Insurance

Insurance coverage for ADA and Unruh Act claims is becoming more common. While it shouldn’t replace compliance, it can limit financial exposure if a lawsuit does occur.

Staying Ahead of the Risk

The combination of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and emerging state-level rules has created a high-stakes environment for accessibility compliance. Class-action multipliers can turn one oversight into a major settlement, and the laws are only expanding.

But the solution isn’t fear—it’s preparation. Regular audits, team training, and ongoing monitoring make accessibility manageable and sustainable. More importantly, they send a clear message to customers: your business welcomes everyone.

At 216digital, we help organizations take a proactive approach to compliance—protecting them from risk while strengthening their commitment to inclusion.

If you’re ready to understand where your website stands and how to stay protected, schedule an ADA briefing with our accessibility team. We’ll walk you through your current risk level, outline a clear strategy for compliance, and help you build digital experiences that work for everyone.

Accessibility done right isn’t just about avoiding lawsuits—it’s about building a web that works for all.
Greg McNeil

October 28, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, Unruh Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, web accessibility lawsuits
PDF Accessibility: Fix It, File It, or Forget It?
Across the country, public agencies, cities, and schools are realizing something familiar: their websites are overflowing with PDFs. Old meeting minutes, downloadable forms, budget reports, policies—some going back decades.

Now that ADA Title II’s new digital accessibility requirements are here, many organizations are asking the same question: What do we do with all these PDFs—fix them, archive them, or just delete them?

It’s a fair concern. Tackling thousands of documents can feel overwhelming, but with structure and clear priorities, compliance doesn’t have to turn into chaos. The key is knowing where each file belongs and understanding what Title II expects. Its “effective communication” requirement applies to any public-facing information—whether it’s a web page or a PDF. And that’s where PDF accessibility becomes essential.

Title II’s Digital Reach: Why PDFs Matter More Than Ever

Under the updated rule, the Department of Justice (DOJ) now explicitly ties compliance to the WCAG 2.1 AA standard for both web content and digital documents. That means PDF accessibility isn’t optional—it’s part of the broader digital landscape public entities must make inclusive.

PDFs often hold critical information: forms for permits, annual budgets, or public notices. They’re not just files—they’re the digital equivalent of bulletin boards and filing cabinets rolled into one. The format doesn’t matter; the function does. If a document delivers essential information or enables public participation in a service, it needs to meet accessibility standards.

Understanding the Stakes: Compliance Meets Communication

This isn’t just about checking a box. Accessibility ensures everyone—residents, students, employees, and citizens—can engage with essential services. A blind resident should be able to review the same budget report that a sighted resident can. A parent using a screen reader should be able to access a school registration form independently.

Neglecting PDF accessibility carries risks beyond legal exposure:
- Civil-rights complaints or DOJ investigations
- Public frustration and loss of trust in digital systems
- Extra workload when staff must manually assist users who can’t access online documents
But there’s a real upside. Addressing inaccessible PDFs improves usability for everyone. Clean, searchable, well-structured documents enhance navigation, readability, and discoverability—building transparency and public trust along the way. In the long run, investing in PDF accessibility helps agencies communicate more clearly and build stronger, more inclusive digital services.

Sorting It Out: Three Paths for Existing PDFs

Before you can fix what’s broken, you need to understand what you have. Every public document fits into one of three paths: fix, file, or forget.

Fix: PDFs in Active Use

These are your living documents—the ones the public still needs. Application forms, current policies, schedules, or reports referenced by staff or citizens all qualify as “active.” If people rely on them today, they must meet accessibility standards, no matter their age.

Start by prioritizing what has the most reach or impact:
- Focus on high-traffic documents or those tied to essential services.
- Create a phased remediation plan.
- Use accessibility audits or trusted vendors for technical guidance.
Updating these first helps protect the most visible and important content while creating a process that scales for future updates.

Archive: PDFs with Historical or Record Value

The DOJ recognizes a category called archived web content—older documents created before the compliance date that are retained only for historical or recordkeeping purposes.

To qualify, archived files must:
- Be clearly placed in an archive section of your site
- Be labeled as historical
- Remain unmodified since their creation
Archiving is a defensible compliance approach when done correctly. However, there’s one important caveat: if someone requests an archived document, you must still provide it in an accessible format upon request. It’s fine to preserve history—you just need a plan to make it readable when needed.

Delete: PDFs That No Longer Serve a Purpose

Every website collects digital clutter. Old announcements, expired forms, or duplicate files often linger long after their purpose has passed. Deleting them doesn’t just tidy your server—it also reduces long-term accessibility risk.

Think of it this way: every file you remove is one less you’ll need to review, remediate, or defend later. For content that no longer supports any public service or recordkeeping need, deletion is not only safe—it’s smart.

You may find hundreds of outdated documents—old announcements, expired forms, duplicate files, or irrelevant reports. Removing these reduces clutter, storage costs, and long-term accessibility risk. Sometimes deletion is the simplest path to compliance. If a document serves no purpose, deleting it prevents unnecessary maintenance down the road.

The Gray Areas: When “Archived” Isn’t Really Archived

Here’s where organizations often run into trouble. Some documents labeled “archived” are still being used—an outdated but still-referenced policy, a legacy planning guide, or old meeting minutes still linked from a current page.

If users still rely on it, cite it, or access it from your main site, it’s not archived—it’s active. The DOJ looks closely at how information is used, not just where it’s stored.

Ask yourself:
- Is this file still referenced in new materials?
- Do users still need it to understand a current program or policy?
If the answer is yes, it belongs in your accessibility plan, not your archive.

Building a Smarter PDF Strategy

Once you’ve decided what stays and what goes, you can start building a smarter plan. Think of it as PDF triage—a way to make decisions systematically instead of reactively.
1. Inventory: List all PDFs on your public-facing sites.
2. Classify: Label each one as active, archival, or obsolete.
3. Act: Remediate, relocate, or remove accordingly.
Then, put a few internal practices in place:
- Add accessibility checkpoints before publishing new PDFs.
- Use consistent naming and labeling for archived sections.
- Create templates that already meet WCAG standards.
- Train staff on creating and testing accessible files before upload.
The goal is to make born-accessible PDFs your default. By designing accessibility into everyday workflows, you’ll prevent the next backlog before it starts.

Making Remediation Manageable

No one expects every document to be fixed overnight. PDF accessibility takes time, and focusing on steady, measurable progress rather than instant perfection is what makes lasting success possible.

Here’s how to keep it realistic:
- Use automated tools to identify the biggest barriers quickly.
- Prioritize documents that are high-traffic or legally required.
- Partner with remediation vendors for bulk or complex projects.
- Convert forms and frequently updated PDFs to HTML for easier long-term maintenance.
Over time, small wins add up. Every accessible file you fix reduces future workload, builds public trust, and strengthens your internal process.

Shifting the Culture: Accessibility by Design

The most sustainable compliance doesn’t come from one big remediation push—it comes from changing how documents are created in the first place. When accessibility is built into the process, it stops being a project and becomes a habit.

Encourage teams to:
- Include accessibility requirements in internal content policies.
- Define clear roles and accountability for document creation.
- Provide basic accessibility training for everyone who handles web content.
- Review third-party uploads or contributions to ensure they meet standards.
When accessibility becomes part of your everyday workflow, it’s no longer a scramble each time regulations change—it’s already part of how your organization communicates. Over time, PDF accessibility becomes second nature, reflecting a commitment to inclusion rather than just compliance.

When in Doubt, Sort It Out

So, what do you do with thousands of PDFs?
- Fix the ones people still use.
- File the ones that hold real historical value.
- Forget the ones that no longer serve a purpose.
ADA Title II compliance isn’t only about avoiding penalties—it’s about ensuring everyone, regardless of ability, has equal access to public information. With a clear plan and an honest look at what matters most, you can turn a daunting task into a sustainable, forward-looking strategy.

And if your team needs help deciding where to start, 216digital can guide you—through audits, remediation, and long-term accessibility planning. Schedule an ADA briefing to chart a practical path toward compliance, clarity, and confidence.
Greg McNeil

October 22, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, accessible PDF, PDF, WCAG, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
Will H.R. 3417 Finally Clarify Accessibility?
Digital accessibility in the U.S. has always existed in a kind of fog. Everyone agrees it’s important, but the lingering question is simple: Does the ADA actually require my website or app to be accessible?

For years, that answer has depended on where you are and who you ask. Some courts say yes. Others hesitate. Agencies offer guidance but stop short of making it binding. For organizations trying to do the right thing, the result has been confusion—and a fair amount of frustration.

That may soon change.

H.R. 3417, known as the Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act of 2025, is Congress’s latest effort to clear the air and make digital accessibility a matter of law, not interpretation. Let’s unpack what it aims to do, why it matters, and what steps you can take to prepare before it takes effect.

What the Bill Proposes

Introduced in May 2025 by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), H.R. 3417 takes on something that’s been missing for far too long—a single, consistent standard for digital accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It brings long-needed structure to how accessibility is defined and maintained online.

Under the bill:
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) would oversee regulations for Titles II and III, covering state and local governments as well as public accommodations.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would manage Title I, which is focused on employment.
Together, these agencies would be responsible for creating clear, enforceable rules—and updating them every three years so the law evolves alongside technology instead of chasing it.

Rooted in the POUR Principles

The framework builds on the four POUR principles that continue to shape accessibility standards worldwide:
- Perceivable: Information should reach people through more than one sense.
- Operable: Interfaces must respond to different types of input.
- Understandable: Content should be predictable, consistent, and easy to follow.
- Robust: It needs to work with assistive technologies—both now and as they advance.
These principles aren’t new, but their inclusion helps bridge the gap between policy and real-world design. It connects legislation to the human experience of using digital tools—the moments when clarity, contrast, and focus truly matter.

A Step Forward for Digital Inclusion

Advocacy groups, including the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind, have voiced strong support for the bill. For many, it marks a long-awaited turning point—one that reinforces what accessibility professionals have long understood: inclusion isn’t limited to ramps and doorways. It belongs in every digital space where people work, learn, and live their daily lives.

Why H.R. 3417 Matters

When the ADA became law in 1990, the web wasn’t yet central to daily life. Today, nearly everything happens online—shopping, learning, applying for jobs, and even managing health care. Yet the law never clearly said how accessibility applies to the digital world.

Under Title III, businesses and nonprofits can’t discriminate. Yet there’s still no binding rule that defines what accessibility actually means for websites or apps. Courts have often relied on WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) as a reference, but WCAG itself isn’t law. The result is a patchwork of interpretations and uneven enforcement.

H.R. 3417 would change that by replacing uncertainty with structure. It extends accessibility expectations to private businesses, nonprofits, and employment platforms—aligning them with the clarity already provided to public entities under the 2024 DOJ web rule for Title II.

It also ensures the right people are guiding the process. The bill requires an advisory committee—led primarily by individuals with disabilities—to help shape standards that work in real life, not just on paper.

What the Bill Would Do

At its core, H.R. 3417 says this: maintaining an inaccessible website or app would violate the ADA. No more gray zones. No more “we didn’t know.”

The DOJ and EEOC would create detailed accessibility standards—likely drawing from WCAG 2.2 Level AA or its successor—and require all covered entities to comply.

To make adoption realistic, the bill supports smaller organizations with grants up to $10,000, access to a technical assistance center, and longer compliance timelines—up to three years after the final rule takes effect.

It also preserves individuals’ right to sue if barriers remain. Courts could require fixes and award damages or attorney fees. To back it all, Congress plans to allocate $35 million per year for enforcement and oversight from 2026 through 2035.

Who’s Covered
- Employers and employment agencies (Title I)
- Public entities like state and local governments (Title II)
- Businesses, nonprofits, and testing providers (Title III)
That reach is broad—and that’s exactly the point. If you’re already subject to the ADA, your digital platforms will soon fall under the same expectations.

What H.R. 3417 Could Change

If passed, H.R. 3417 would finally give organizations a single, national rulebook for digital accessibility. It would eliminate the guesswork that’s led to years of inconsistent rulings and conflicting advice. For most organizations, that means a clearer sense of what compliance looks like—and how to plan for it.

It would also shift responsibility to where it belongs. For decades, people with disabilities have carried the burden of filing complaints and lawsuits to gain access. This bill would make accessibility an active obligation, not a reaction to litigation.

Of course, laws are only as strong as their enforcement. While the bill includes funding, it doesn’t yet specify how the DOJ or EEOC will prioritize or staff digital accessibility enforcement. Some expect a wave of early lawsuits—similar to what we saw with Section 508 and GDPR—but that initial pressure could drive lasting improvement.

The Act doesn’t explicitly address international harmonization either, though alignment with WCAG would naturally connect it to Europe’s EN 301 549 standard. That keeps global compliance more straightforward for companies working across borders.

The bottom line is that this bill sends a message that’s been coming for a long time—digital accessibility is no longer optional.

What Organizations Can Do Now

There’s no need to wait for the ink to dry—you can start preparing today.

Take a close look at your digital environment: your website, apps, internal portals, and documents. Ask the simple questions first. Can users navigate without a mouse? Are forms labeled clearly? Do videos include captions? Small discoveries today prevent bigger problems tomorrow.

Start With What Matters Most

Focus on the areas people use most—where they log in, fill out forms, or complete purchases. Fix the issues that stop someone from moving forward, like missing labels, alt text, or keyboard navigation.

Include Your Documents

PDFs and digital forms often get overlooked, but are a common source of frustration. Add proper tags, label form fields, and set a logical reading order. Once your templates are structured correctly, every new document follows suit.

Make Accessibility a Shared Effort

It’s not a job for one department. Developers, designers, content creators, and leadership all play a part. Build accessibility checks into your regular workflows and let people know how to report issues.

Collaborate With Your Vendors

Include accessibility expectations in contracts and RFPs. Ask for VPATs or accessibility documentation before new tools go live.

Keep Learning and Documenting

Train your team, stay informed about new regulations, and track your progress. A simple paper trail of audits, fixes, and training sessions shows commitment that goes beyond compliance.

When accessibility becomes part of your process—not a last-minute fix—it strengthens everything: your brand, your usability, and your connection with every user.

The End of Uncertainty—and the Start of Accountability

H.R. 3417 isn’t just another bill. It’s a signal that the era of uncertainty is ending. It tells organizations, large and small, that accessibility isn’t a nice-to-have—it’s a right.

Whether it passes this year or the next, the direction is clear. Start building accessibility into your workflow now, not later.

At 216digital, we see this as a turning point—one that rewards teams who act early and design with everyone in mind. If you’re ready to take the next step, consider scheduling an ADA briefing with our team. These sessions help organizations identify accessibility gaps, plan remediation, and prepare for compliance with confidence.

The web was built for all of us. This bill helps make sure it finally works that way.
Greg McNeil

October 10, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, accessibility laws, H.R. 3417, state accessibility laws, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

Why Lawmakers Are Pushing for Accessibility Reform

The Pressure From High-Volume Filings

Why States Point to Missing Title III Web Standards

Balancing Litigation Reform and Civil Rights

Three Legal Changes Shaping Accessibility Lawsuits

Federal Notice and Remediation Window Proposals

Federal Website Accessibility Standards Proposals

State Laws Targeting Abusive Website Accessibility Litigation

What May Change in Accessibility Lawsuits and What Will Not

What May Change

What Will Not Change

Multi-State Website Compliance and Accessibility Risk

How State Approaches Differ

Remediation Windows and a 30-Day Response Plan

Legislative Reform and Real Access

How to Make Website Accessibility Sustainable

Build Around High-Value User Journeys

Prevent Regressions Between Releases

Track How Regulations Are Evolving

How Teams Can Stay Ready as Regulations Take Shape

What an ADA Demand Letter for a Website Is

The Key Parts of an ADA Demand Letter

Header and Complainant Information

Statement of Alleged Violations in an ADA Demand Letter

Requested Action in an ADA Demand Letter

Deadline and Next Steps

Legal References and Signature

Is the Letter Real? A Quick Verification Checklist

How to Move Ahead After an ADA Demand Letter Lands

The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

Drafting the Complaint

Gathering “Evidence”

Reusing Templates

Filing Online

Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

Reducing Risk in an Era of AI-Generated Web Accessibility Lawsuits

Where Title II and Title III Fit in ADA Web Accessibility

Who Title II Covers for Government Web Accessibility

How Title III Applies to Private Websites, Apps, and Digital Services

Shared Goals, Different Paths for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

A Practical Roadmap for Title II and Title III Web Accessibility Compliance

1. Clarify How the ADA Applies to You

2. Map Your Full Digital Surface

3. Audit Against WCAG 2.1 Level AA

4. Prioritize Remediation by Impact

5. Integrate Accessibility Into Delivery

6. Align People and Vendors Around Shared Expectations

7. Monitor, Document, and Adjust

Using Title II and Title III Insight to Shape Sustainable Accessibility

Why Your Theme Choice Shapes More Than Just Design

What “Accessible” Really Means in Practice

Common Problems You’ll See When You Test Themes

WooCommerce Themes With Better Built-In Accessibility

Storefront

Neve

Responsive

OceanWP

Eimear and Monument Valley

How to Vet a Theme’s Accessibility Quickly

Do a Full Keyboard Tour

Check Headings and Landmarks

Test Forms and Messages

Zoom and Shrink

Fixing Gaps When Your Theme Is “Almost There”

How to Maintain Accessibility After Launch

Your Theme Is the Start—Accessibility Is Ongoing

ADA, Websites, & Why Compliance Isn’t a One-Time Box To Check

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

Why Websites Are Vulnerable To Repeated Claims

Can You Face New ADA Lawsuits While You’re Fixing Things?

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

Haynes v. Hooters