216digital.
Web Accessibility

ADA Risk Mitigation
Prevent and Respond to ADA Lawsuits

WCAG & Section 508
Conform with Local and International Requirements

a11y.Radar
Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance

Consultation & Training

Is Your Website Vulnerable to Frivolous Lawsuits?
Get a Free Web Accessibility Audit to Learn Where You Stand
Find Out Today!

Web Design & Development

Marketing

PPC Management
Google & Social Media Ads

Professional SEO
Increase Organic Search Strength

Interested in Marketing?
Speak to an Expert about marketing opportunities for your brand to cultivate support and growth online.
Contact Us

About

Blog

Contact Us

  • Website Accessibility is Critical to Legal Risk Management

    As an attorney who has represented hundreds of businesses in cases filed under the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), I have repeatedly seen the legal consequence, expense, and aggravation, that business owners can experience when their website is not ADA compliant. As such, appropriate legal risk management requires an “all hands on deck” approach to website accessibility. 

    In the modern digital landscape, a website is often the primary storefront for a business. While you may have invested heavily in visual design and user experience, failing to consider accessibility for users with disabilities can expose your company to significant legal risk.

    The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation. While the original law was written long before the internet was used in commerce, courts and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have increasingly interpreted “places of public accommodation” to include websites. This interpretation means that if your digital content is not accessible to individuals using screen readers or other assistive technologies, you may be violating the ADA.

    The consequences of non-compliance are not theoretical. They involve costly litigation, damage to brand reputation, and mandated remediation that is often more expensive than proactive compliance would have been.

    Understanding the Legal Landscape of ADA Website Lawsuits

    The surge in ADA website lawsuits has been dramatic and sustained. Plaintiffs and advocacy groups are actively identifying businesses with non-compliant websites and filing complaints in federal and state courts. Many law firms are also sending demand letters threatening litigation.

    The Cost of Litigation

    For small to medium sized businesses with limited resources, the financial impact of an ADA lawsuit can be significant. When you are sued, you generally face three distinct categories of financial exposure:

    1. Plaintiff’s Legal Fees: If the plaintiff prevails or if you settle (which is the most common outcome), you are typically required to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Because the ADA is a fee-shifting statute designed to encourage enforcement by private citizens, these fees can quickly escalate into the thousands of dollars.
    2. Defense Costs: You must hire your own legal counsel to defend the claim, negotiate a settlement, or guide you through the remediation process. Specialized ADA defense counsel, like my law firm and others, are essential, but represent additional cost burden.
    3. Settlement or Damages: Depending on the specific state laws involved (such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act in California or New York State Human Rights Law), you may be liable for statutory damages per violation or per visit. Even without statutory damages, settlements are often paid to resolve the case quickly.

    Who Is at Risk?

    No industry is immune. My law firm has represented businesses in dozens of industries, from across the United States, and around the world. While early lawsuits tended to target larger corporations, the focus has shifted significantly toward small and medium-sized businesses. Retailers, restaurants, hotels, and professional service providers are frequent targets. If your business operates a website that is interfacing with the public, you are potentially at risk.

    Strategic Defenses and Remediation

    If you receive a demand letter or are served with a lawsuit, your immediate response is critical. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away; quite the opposite, ignoring the issue is likely to make it worse and more expensive.

    Immediate Steps to Take

    1. Consult an Expert Defense Attorney: Do not attempt to navigate ADA litigation alone. Contact a lawyer who specializes in ADA defense. A good ADA defense lawyer can evaluate the validity of the claim, determine if the plaintiff has “standing” (the legal right to sue based on actual injury), and advise as to the most cost-effective strategy.
    2. Conduct a Comprehensive Audit: You need to know exactly where your website fails. Automated scanning tools are a good start, but they only catch about 30% of errors. A thorough audit requires manual testing by website accessibility experts, like 216digital.
    3. Initiate Remediation Immediately: Courts often look favorably upon businesses that demonstrate a swift commitment to fixing the issues. Developing a remediation plan—a roadmap for how and when you will fix the accessibility barriers—can sometimes be used as a defense or leverage in settlement negotiations. Moreover, we have found that once a business is sued, it is likely to be sued again if it does not come into compliance with ADA requirements. This is where a company like 216digital can be critical.

    The Role of Accessibility Statements

    Posting an accessibility statement on your website is a best practice. This statement should declare your commitment to accessibility, outline the standards you are following (e.g., WCAG 2.1), and provide a contact method for users who encounter difficulties. While a statement alone does not prevent lawsuits, it demonstrates good faith and provides an alternative channel for resolving issues before they escalate to litigation.

    The Business Case Beyond Compliance

    While the immediate driver for many businesses is avoiding legal action, the benefits of website accessibility extend further.

    • Expanded Market Reach: There are over 60 million adults with disabilities in the United States. By making your site accessible, you open your business to a massive, often underserved market segment with significant spending power.
    • SEO Benefits: Many accessibility best practices, such as using proper heading structures and alt text, also improve Search Engine Optimization (SEO), helping your site rank higher in search results.

    Protect Your Business from Liability

    The legal risks associated with non-compliant websites are real and growing. For business owners, the “wait and see” approach is not a viable strategy. The cost of proactive compliance is a fraction of the cost of defending a lawsuit (after which, compliance will still be necessary).

    By understanding the legal landscape, adhering to WCAG standards, and working with experienced legal and technical experts, you can mitigate this entirely predictable legal risk, ensure ADA compliance, and become accessible to the maximum possible number of prospective customers.

    Kayla Laganiere

    February 13, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility Remediation, ADA Lawsuit, Legal compliance, legal risk management, risk mitigation

  • Accessibility Statement: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

    An accessibility statement is one of those pages most teams don’t think about until something forces the issue. A user hits a blocker and asks for help. A procurement review wants proof of process. Or someone internally asks the question no one loves answering: “What can we honestly say about accessibility right now?”

    If you already work with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), you know the hard part isn’t writing a few well-meaning lines. It’s making sure the statement matches the lived experience of your site. It needs to be specific enough to help someone plan their next step, careful enough to hold up under scrutiny, and practical enough that it won’t be outdated after the next release.

    We’ll walk through the common versions you’ll see online, what they communicate at a glance, and what to include if you want a statement that stays accurate as your site and your workflows keep evolving.

    Accessibility Statement Best Practices

    WCAG does not require an accessibility statement. That surprises a lot of teams. But “not required” and “not important” are two different things.

    A statement helps people understand what to expect and how to get support. It also helps internal teams because it forces clarity. If it feels hard to explain your testing process or your goals, that usually points to a bigger issue. The work may be happening in pieces, but the process is not fully owned yet.

    In some cases, publishing a statement is not optional. The Revised Section 508 Standards in the United States apply to many public institutions and require accessibility statements that follow a specific format. And even when an organization is not under Section 508, laws and regulations like the ADA, AODA, or EAA raise the stakes around access and transparency.

    There is also a practical reality. When a complaint or demand letter happens, this page gets read. Often early. It shows what you claimed, what you promised, and whether your wording matches the experience. So it is not only communication. It can become evidence.

    Missing Accessibility Statement: User and Risk Impact

    No page. No link. No mention in the footer or on the contact page.

    When a site has no accessibility statement, users are left guessing. If they hit a barrier, they also have no clear way to report it. Many people will not spend extra time searching for a hidden email address. They will leave.

    A missing statement usually points to one of three situations:

    • Accessibility has not been considered yet.
    • It has been considered, but it keeps getting pushed down the list.
    • Work is happening, but nobody has taken ownership of communicating it.

    None of that helps someone trying to apply for a job, schedule an appointment, pay a bill, or place an order.

    It can also create risk. It can look like there is no accessibility process at all. Again, that is not proof by itself. But it is not a good signal.

    Boilerplate Accessibility Statement: Copy, Paste, Risk

    Boilerplate is easy to spot. It often says “we are committed to accessibility” and references WCAG, but nothing else. No date. No testing details. No contact method that feels monitored. Sometimes it even claims full compliance.

    This version is risky for a simple reason. It makes a promise without support.

    If the site still has keyboard traps, broken form labels, missing focus states, or confusing headings, users will notice the mismatch right away. The page that was meant to build confidence does the opposite.

    Boilerplate also tends to sound the same across many sites. That sameness can read as performative. People have seen it before, and many have learned it does not mean much in practice.

    If your statement came from a template, treat it as a draft. It should be reviewed with the same care you would give a checkout flow, an account login, or a support page.

    Aspirational Accessibility Statement: Nice Words, Few Details

    This one is tricky because it can come from a good place.

    Aspirational statements often sound warm and well-intentioned. They talk about inclusion, values, and long-term goals. Some mention employee groups, empathy workshops, or automated tools. The problem isn’t the heart behind it. It’s that none of this helps a user complete a task today.

    Where these statements tend to fall short is in clarity. They describe the why but skip the what now. Users trying to pay a bill or submit a form need concrete information, not broad promises about the future. When a statement avoids specifics about testing, current site limitations, or how to get help, it becomes more of a brand message than a resource.

    This is also where teams can unintentionally stall. Publishing a warm, values-driven accessibility statement can create the illusion that the work is “handled,” even when the practical steps are still ahead.

    How to Write a Good Accessibility Statement

    A strong accessibility statement is simple in a practical way. It does not try to sound impressive. It explains what you are doing, what you know, and how users can reach you if they run into a problem.

    You can think of it as having a few main ingredients. The exact recipe will vary by organization, but these parts show up again and again in statements that users actually trust.

    Purpose and Commitment

    Start with a clear handshake. Say you are dedicated to making your website or content accessible, including for people who use assistive technology. Keep it short and human. It should feel like support, not legal language.

    Standards and Guidelines (WCAG)

    Mention the standard you are aiming for, such as WCAG 2.2 Level AA. If that is your target, say it. If you are still working toward it, you can say that too. Honesty here builds more trust than a bold claim.

    Testing Approach and Review Dates

    This is where you move from “we care” to “we have a process.”

    Include:

    • The date of your last accessibility evaluation
    • Whether you used automated checks, manual testing, or both
    • How often you plan to review the site again

    You can also name what you focus on at a high level, like key user flows, forms, templates, and shared components. Users do not need a lab report. They do need to know that testing is not a rumor.

    Areas of Success

    This part is often missing, but it helps. Call out what is working well today. It tells users where the experience is likely to be smoother, and it shows that accessibility work is not only future tense.

    Examples might include:

    • Core navigation and main templates reviewed for keyboard and screen reader use
    • Improved form labels and clearer error handling in key workflows
    • Updates to contrast and focus styling on shared components

    Keep this realistic. Don’t oversell. Just help users understand where the site is in better shape.

    Areas Needing Improvement

    Nobody’s site is perfect, and users already know that. The question is whether you are willing to be honest about it.

    List the known problem areas that affect tasks. For example:

    • Older pages that still have heading or label issues
    • Some PDFs or documents that are not fully accessible yet
    • Third-party tools that have accessibility limits, you are working to address

    If you can add timelines or priority windows, do it. Avoid vague “we’re working on it” language. A specific window builds confidence because it shows this is planned work, not wishful thinking.

    Assistive Technology and Environments Tested

    Mention the kinds of environments you consider, such as desktop and mobile, keyboard-only use, and screen readers. A short list helps users understand whether your testing reflects their reality.

    Contact Information and Support Process

    Provide an easy way to reach out if someone runs into a barrier. Email is a baseline. Some teams also offer a phone number or an accessible form.

    Just as important, include a brief note about what happens after someone reaches out. Even one sentence helps. For example, reports are reviewed and routed to the right team.

    Where to Place the Accessibility Statement Link

    Make sure the statement is easy to find. Put it in the footer, and consider linking it from the contact page as well. If users need a search engine to find it, you are adding friction at the exact moment they need support.

    Common Accessibility Statement Mistakes

    Even a well-meaning statement can miss the mark. These are the mistakes that show up the most.

    Overly Legal or Technical Language

    An accessibility statement is not a compliance brief. Write for people. Define acronyms. Use short paragraphs and lists. Make it scannable.

    Claims You Can’t Support

    Avoid saying “fully compliant” unless you can back it up and keep it true over time. Websites change constantly. A claim that was accurate once can become inaccurate fast.

    A safer approach is to describe your goal, your testing, and your process.

    No Clear Feedback Path

    If there is no clear way to report barriers, the statement fails one of its most important jobs. And if you list an email address, make sure it is monitored.

    Burying the Accessibility Statement

    Put it somewhere consistent, like a global footer. Users should not have to hunt.

    Make Your Accessibility Statement Match Reality

    An accessibility statement only does its job if it stays close to reality. As your site changes, the statement should keep pace, reflecting what has been tested, what still needs attention, and how people can reach you when something doesn’t work as expected. If reading your current statement feels uncomfortable or outdated, that’s not a dead end. It’s a useful signal that your process needs clearer ownership, stronger testing language, or a better plan for keeping the page current.

    At 216digital, our team is committed to helping you take the steps towards web accessibility on your terms by developing a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.2 compliance into your development roadmap. We offer comprehensive services that not only audit your website for accessibility but also provide solutions to meet ADA compliance requirements.

    To learn what more you should do to achieve and maintain accessibility for your team, schedule a Complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing with the experts at 216digital.

    Greg McNeil

    February 13, 2026
    How-to Guides, Legal Compliance, Web Accessibility Training
    accessibility statement, Accessibility Statment, How-to, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

  • Will ADA 30 Days to Comply Act Reduce Website Lawsuits?

    Many business owners feel caught in the middle of the rising wave of digital accessibility lawsuits. They may care about access and want to do the right thing, but they also face unclear expectations, inherited platforms, limited resources, and legal threats that arrive with little warning. One week you are focused on running the business. The next, you are triaging risk, trying to understand what went wrong, and figuring out what you can realistically fix and how fast.

    H.R. 7668, also known as the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, is getting attention for that reason. It proposes a notice-and-cure process for certain ADA Title III claims, giving businesses a short window to address reported barriers before a lawsuit can proceed. If you have already faced multiple claims, or you are worried about being targeted next, that window can sound like overdue breathing room. More time to fix. Less pressure to settle.

    The catch is what happens during that waiting period, and who pays the cost of the delay. On the web, access often means completing something time-sensitive. A job application, a class registration, a patient portal, a government form, a purchase. This article breaks down what H.R. 7668 would change, why many businesses support it, why advocates see risks, and what actually helps reduce exposure to ADA website lawsuits while still moving accessibility forward.

    What H.R. 7668 Would Change

    At the center of H.R. 7668 is a notice requirement and a short remediation window before a civil action may be filed under Title III. The proposal is commonly referred to as the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act.

    In practical terms, it would require a person to notify a business of an alleged accessibility barrier and give the business 30 days to address it before filing a Title III lawsuit. This could change the timing of ADA Title III website lawsuits by adding a notice step before filing.

    Supporters often describe it as a common-sense fix. Many businesses feel they are hit with legal pressure before they even understand what the problem is. They want a chance to respond without being forced into a quick settlement that does not always lead to lasting improvements.

    At the same time, digital access is often time-sensitive. If someone cannot apply for a job, complete coursework, access healthcare information, or use a government service when it matters, waiting can mean the opportunity is gone. That tension shows up quickly once the conversation shifts from legal process to real usage.

    Why Web Accessibility Issues Repeat

    A notice-and-cure approach assumes a business needs a heads-up before it can act. Sometimes that is true. A missing label, a broken link, or an overlooked content update can happen.

    But many web accessibility issues repeat because the source is shared.

    • A page template has an incorrect heading structure, and that template drives most pages on the site.
    • Buttons are built as non-button elements, so keyboard users hit the same wall across menus, filters, and modals.
    • Form errors are shown only with color, and the same form pattern is reused in many places.
    • A third-party tool is added without testing, then becomes required for checkout, scheduling, or account access.
    • New content is published quickly, but the workflow does not include checks for alt text, table structure, or captions.

    When issues keep repeating, notice is not the missing piece. A working process is.

    This is also where timelines get tricky. If the barrier is tied to a design system or a CMS theme, remediation is not one edit. It can mean code changes, content revision, QA, and sometimes vendor coordination.

    Why Businesses Support 30 Days to Comply

    Supporters of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act often frame the 30-day window as basic fairness and focus. Many organizations do not have in-house accessibility expertise. They are juggling older platforms, third-party tools, and competing priorities. When a lawsuit lands first, costs often go to legal defense and settlement pressure instead of to remediation. A notice-and-cure requirement, in that view, creates breathing room so dollars can go toward fixing barriers instead of quick payouts.

    That argument is also tied to what the lawsuit data shows about repeat targeting. Of the more than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits filed in 2025, 1,427 targeted companies that had already faced an ADA web accessibility claim. In federal court alone, 46 percent of cases involved repeat defendants. Plaintiff firms track litigation history and revisit companies targeted previously for easy wins. When businesses see that cycle, it is easy to understand why some view a portion of filings as driven by litigation incentives rather than by a push for durable accessibility.

    It is worth saying clearly that many lawsuits are brought by individuals with disabilities, raising legitimate access barriers. That is part of why this space is so serious. The concern from businesses is that repeat targeting can turn into a pattern where the money goes to settlements instead of fixes, and the underlying site stays vulnerable.

    That is the business-side hope behind H.R. 7668. Delay litigation long enough to put resources into remediation first. Bring the focus back to what matters. A site people can use.

    Why Advocates Oppose Notice-and-Cure

    The civil rights concern does not disappear because repeat filings exist. Notice-and-cure requirements still place the first step on the person who hit the barrier, and that person still experiences the impact in the moment.

    If someone cannot complete a time-sensitive task, a 30-day wait can function like a closed door. Even if the site is improved later, the missed opportunity does not come back. That is why disability advocates push back on any model that makes access contingent on a complaint-first process.

    This is the tension the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act puts in sharper focus. Businesses want a fair chance to direct resources toward remediation instead of settlements, especially when they fear repeat targeting. People with disabilities need usable access when they arrive, not weeks later.

    If policy changes move forward, the measure of success should be practical. Fewer barriers. Faster fixes that hold up over time. Less repeat litigation because the underlying issues were actually addressed.

    Pros of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

    There are situations where notice-and-cure could lead to better outcomes, especially for teams that are willing to act quickly and work on root causes.

    • Reduces the rush to settle, giving teams room to invest in fixes.
    • Creates a clearer internal trigger for action, especially in organizations where accessibility keeps getting postponed.
    • Encourages faster response when barriers are limited, and the team can move quickly.
    • Builds public trust when an organization responds with transparency and follow-through.

    A notice window can be useful when it leads to real remediation and better practices afterward. The risk is when it becomes a timing shield instead of a change in behavior.

    Cons of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

    Even teams acting in good faith can run into problems with a 30-day cure period, especially in digital systems with complexity and volume.

    First, it can increase the number of formal notices. If notice becomes the required entry point, more people will use it. That does not automatically mean bad intent. It can simply reflect the new process.

    Second, thirty days can be tight for web remediation. Many issues do not live in one place. Navigation, forms, checkout, account access, PDFs, video libraries, and third-party tools can all be part of the claim. Fixing those well takes planning and testing.

    Third, rushed fixes can backfire. A patch on one page does not help if the same component appears across the site. When teams fix symptoms instead of shared patterns, problems return on the next release.

    And finally, legal exposure does not disappear. A notice step changes the timeline. It does not remove the obligation. If barriers remain, or if the response is incomplete, litigation can still follow.

    This is why H.R. 7668 does not eliminate risk. It changes how the first phase may unfold.

    How to Reduce ADA Website Lawsuit Risk

    Policy debates tend to focus on process. Lawsuit prevention tends to come down to outcomes. The most reliable way to reduce web accessibility lawsuits is to reduce barriers.

    That does not require perfection. It requires repeatable habits that hold up through releases and content changes.

    A strong foundation usually includes:

    • Clear design and development standards aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
    • Manual testing paired with automated checks
    • A review step that happens before release, not only after complaints
    • Content rules that help editors publish accessibly by default
    • Review of third-party tools before they become part of critical tasks
    • Ownership and documentation so that fixes do not drift between teams

    When those pieces exist, accessibility work stops feeling like an emergency cleanup. It becomes maintenance and quality control. That is also when budgets and timelines become more predictable, and repeat issues start to drop.

    This is also where web accessibility compliance becomes more predictable. When accessibility is built into design, development, and publishing, it stops being an emergency project and becomes part of quality control.

    Whether the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act passes or not, that approach protects users and lowers exposure.

    What to Do If You Get an ADA Notice

    If a notice-and-cure structure becomes the norm, response quality will matter. Panic leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts create repeat problems.

    A practical response plan often looks like this:

    1. Acknowledge quickly and document everything.
      Confirm receipt. Log dates. Keep communication in one place.
    2. Validate what is being alleged.
      Some claims are accurate. Some are incomplete. Testing helps separate the two. Manual checks matter here.
    3. Prioritize critical user journeys first.
      Focus on the paths people need to complete tasks. Navigation, forms, checkout, account access, and core conversions usually come first.
    4. Fix at the source when possible.
      If the issue is in a shared component, fix it there. If content is involved, adjust the workflow so the issue does not keep spreading.
    5. Track progress with evidence.
      Save tickets, notes, test results, and before-and-after examples. Good records support good faith and reduce confusion later.

    A 30-day window can help teams move quickly. It can also expose teams that lack a plan. Either way, being prepared tends to reduce cost, stress, and repeat risk.

    Notice-and-Cure and the Future of ADA Website Claims

    H.R. 7668 and the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act are often framed as a way to reduce bad-faith lawsuits and give businesses time to fix issues instead of paying settlements. That concern is worth taking seriously, especially when repeated targeting appears in the data.

    At the same time, digital access is time-sensitive. Delays can mean missed opportunities and exclusion, even when fixes come later. That is why this proposal draws strong opinions on both sides.

    The clearest path forward is still the same. Build accessibility into how websites are designed, developed, and maintained. Reduce barriers at the source. Make fixes that hold up across releases.

    That kind of progress is easier to sustain when WCAG 2.1 compliance work is tied directly to the development roadmap, with clear priorities and ownership. If support is needed to build that strategy, 216digital can help you do it on your terms. Schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing and let’s build a path that supports both business goals and user needs.

    Greg McNeil

    February 10, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuits, Legal compliance, state accessibility laws, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

  • Who’s Legally Responsible for Web Accessibility—You or Your Client?

    Accessibility is now a standard part of online business. That is progress. It also brings a harder question: what happens when the work gets challenged? When a demand letter or lawsuit shows up, who is responsible for web accessibility in a legal sense—the agency managing the site, or the organization that owns it?

    In most U.S. disputes, the website owner is usually the first party named. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally places the duty on the covered entity providing the goods, services, or programs, even when access happens through a website or app. 

    But that does not mean agencies and contractors are not exposed. Vendors often enter these disputes through contract language, representations, and third-party claims after the client is sued. In some public-sector contexts, particularly in California, plaintiffs have shown a willingness to pull contractors closer to the center of the dispute.

    This article breaks down who gets held accountable, why vendors still face risk, and how courts tend to evaluate who is responsible for web accessibility once a claim is active.

    Who Is Responsible for Web Accessibility Under the ADA?

    When people ask, “Who is legally responsible?” they are often asking more than one question. One is procedural: who gets named first. The other is substantive: who the law places the duty on.

    In most disputes, the first answer is the website owner—the organization offering the public-facing service. The second answer typically points to the same place. The ADA generally ties the obligation to the covered entity providing the goods, services, or programs, including when access happens through a website or app. DOJ guidance is aimed at public-facing businesses and at state and local governments, reinforcing that expectation.

    For private-sector teams, this is the practical baseline. Title III risk typically follows the business offering the goods or services, not the agency building the site. The claim is about access to what the business provides online, so the owner is the party most likely to be named first.

    Public-sector requirements can be more prescriptive, but the structure stays similar. The obligation attaches to the entity delivering the program or service.

    The piece that often gets missed is the next question: who can still be exposed even if they are not named first. That is where vendor risk tends to show up—through contract language, representations, and downstream claims after the client is sued.

    That’s why the key question becomes not only who is named first, but how the record determines who is responsible for web accessibility once a claim is active.

    How Vendors Get Pulled In

    Even when the website owner is the primary legal target, vendors can still get pulled in. Most of the time, it happens through three documentation-driven channels.

    Contract Allocation

    The agreement can shape the dispute before it starts. Accessibility scope, testing language, warranties, exclusions, and post-launch responsibility influence whether the vendor is treated as having assumed obligations—or whether the client remains clearly responsible for web accessibility after launch.

    Third-Party Claims

    After an owner is sued, it may try to shift costs to a platform, developer, or agency through indemnity, contribution, breach of contract, or misrepresentation theories. At that point, the question is not “Is this a Title III claim?” It is “What did the vendor promise, and can the client point to it?” That record can influence how a court views who is responsible for web accessibility obligations in practice.

    Evidence and Expectations

    Proposals, SOWs, marketing pages, emails, and tickets become the record of what was represented, scoped, and delivered. In a dispute, that record can carry as much weight as the implementation itself—and it can shape arguments about who is responsible for web accessibility when expectations and outcomes don’t match.

    When an Access Claim Becomes a Contract Dispute

    A recent example shows how quickly an accessibility dispute can shift into contract territory.  In Herrera v. Grove Bay Hospitality Group, LLC, after an accessibility claim, a restaurant tried to bring its website platform into the case through a third-party complaint. The court dismissed it, relying heavily on the platform’s terms, including disclaimers of ADA compliance obligations and warranties that the services would satisfy legal requirements.

    Two takeaways for agencies and platforms:

    1. Adding a vendor is not automatic. A viable legal theory still has to survive the contract language.
    2. Courts focus on what the vendor actually assumed. If sales or scope language implies “we guarantee compliance,” you may be taking on obligations your delivery model cannot reliably support.

    That is why “ADA compliant” is a risky marketing phrase unless it is tied to a defined benchmark, a defined scope, and defensible evidence. Otherwise, it can muddy who is responsible for web accessibility when a claim tests the work.

    Responsibility Depends on the Legal Pathway

    A useful way to answer the responsibility question is to separate the underlying access claim from vendor exposure.

    The underlying ADA-style access claim typically targets the entity providing the service, the owner or operator. Vendor exposure usually flows from contracts and promises—and in some contexts, from specialized theories tied to government contracting and representations.

    That distinction matters because it changes what “responsible” means in practice. Vendors do not control whether the ADA applies to a client. You are deciding what you will commit to in writing, what you will represent, and what you can prove you delivered—especially if you later need to show how responsibility was assigned and who is responsible for web accessibility in each phase of the work.

    Define Responsibility in Contracts

    The most effective way to avoid conflict is to define responsibility early and document it in the agreement. Disputes rarely come from bad intent. They come from unclear scope and assumptions that never made it into writing.

    From a risk standpoint, agencies and vendors tend to get squeezed in two predictable ways. Both usually come back to how accessibility is described in the agreement and how the agreement answers who is responsible for web accessibility over time.

    Two Contract Traps

    A Promise Without a Standard

    If you say “ADA compliant” without defining the benchmark, you invite a fight over what you meant. If you promise accessibility outcomes, tie them to a named standard and a defined target.

    A Standard Without Coverage

    Even when WCAG is named, disputes flare up when the scope is unclear. The question becomes what WCAG applies to in this engagement. For example, does it include PDFs, third-party tools, user-generated content, post-launch edits, or new templates and features?

    In disputes, this often turns on whether the vendor assumed a duty, and whether the agreement supports the boundaries the vendor intended. That record often becomes the practical answer to who is responsible for web accessibility when the site evolves beyond the original scope.

    Websites change. Multiple parties touch the system. Your agreement should reflect that reality instead of treating accessibility as a one-time deliverable.

    What to Clarify in Contracts and SOWs

    Strong agreements spell out the standard, the testing approach, the boundaries, and the handoff so both sides can execute the work and defend what was done if questions come up later—especially when someone asks who is responsible for web accessibility after launch.

    Standard

    Identify what accessibility standard is being followed, for example, WCAG 2.1 AA, and clarify whether it applies to all templates, components, and flows, or only to defined pages.

    Testing and Evidence

    State what methods are included—automated, manual, and assistive tech review—and what proof is delivered, such as issue logs, remediation notes, sign-off steps, and before-and-after documentation.

    Boundaries

    Spell out what is out of scope, such as third-party tools, PDFs, legacy pages, and user-generated content. If content remediation is included, define which content types or volumes are covered, so it is not left to interpretation later.

    Post-Launch Ownership

    Clarify who owns accessibility after launch, what that means in practice, and how post-launch edits, new features, and template changes are handled. This is often where teams lose alignment on who is responsible for web accessibility.

    Ongoing Support

    Describe what ongoing support looks like, such as regression monitoring, periodic audits, or training, and how issues are triaged over time, including workflow, escalation, and response expectations.

    When contracts define the standard, the coverage, and the proof, they give both sides a shared operating model that still works months later, after the site has changed and the original project team has rotated.

    Sales Language Can Expand Risk

    Contracts are only part of the picture. When owners try to bring vendors into a dispute, the evidence they reach for is often straightforward: proposals, emails, marketing pages, and platform claims.

    If your materials suggest “we guarantee compliance,” “our platform ensures accessibility,” or “you won’t need to worry about WCAG,” you may be creating avoidable exposure. Those statements are easy to quote, easy to misunderstand, and hard to defend without clear deliverables and documentation.

    If your materials imply you are responsible for web accessibility end-to-end, that language can be used to argue you assumed duties beyond the SOW.

    The goal is not to hide behind vague language. It is to use wording that matches what you will actually do, what is in scope, and what you can show when someone asks.

    The Bottom Line: Responsible for Web Accessibility

    So, who’s responsible for web accessibility—you or your client?

    In practice, accessibility holds up when responsibility is documented, transparent, and treated as ongoing. That clarity protects people who rely on accessible digital experiences, strengthens partnerships, and keeps accessibility from becoming a source of conflict instead of progress.

    If you treat accessibility as a one-time deliverable, responsibility will always be contested. If you treat it as an ongoing practice, responsibility becomes manageable—and shared with purpose.

    At 216digital, we can help you build a practical strategy to integrate WCAG 2.1 into your development roadmap—on your terms. If you want a clear plan for aligning ADA expectations, scope, and documentation with real-world delivery, schedule an ADA Strategy Briefing.

    Greg McNeil

    January 26, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, agency accessibility solutions, Legal compliance, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

  • Can User-Generated Content Trigger an ADA Demand Letter?

    Reviews. Comments. Community posts. Q&A threads. Uploaded photos. Customer-submitted listings.

    If your website includes user-generated content (UGC), you already know one truth: your content changes faster than any single QA pass can keep up with. And that’s where a very real business concern kicks in:

    It’s the same question behind a lot of ADA demand letters and accessibility complaints: if someone else posts it, does it still fall on you?

    Short answer: It can.

    A longer (and more useful) answer: UGC usually isn’t the only reason a business gets an ADA demand letter, but it can absolutely strengthen a complaint—especially when it blocks participation, creates barriers on high-traffic pages, or shows up inside key buying or support experiences.

    Before we go further: this article is informational, not legal advice. If you receive a demand letter or legal threat, it’s smart to involve qualified counsel.

    Now let’s unpack the real issue behind the question: the risk depends on where UGC appears, how it’s created, and what control your platform gives you.

    What User-Generated Content Is and Where It Shows Up

    User-generated content is anything your users create instead of your internal team. That includes reviews, comments, forum posts, Q&A answers, uploaded photos, listings, profiles, and all the little pieces people add to your site as they interact with it.

    But here’s the part that catches most teams off guard:

    UGC isn’t one thing. And it definitely doesn’t behave the same everywhere it appears.

    Some UGC sits inside clean templates and barely shifts. Some shows up as long, free-form posts with images and embeds. And some becomes full pages that search engines crawl and customers rely on. Each of those patterns carries a different level of accessibility exposure.

    Light UGC Explained

    Light UGC is the easiest to keep stable. Think short reviews, star ratings, or a simple comment thread. These usually live inside structured components, so the content itself doesn’t wander too far.

    What does wander?

    The widgets around it.

    A star-rating tool that doesn’t work with a keyboard, a comment form missing labels, or a “load more” button with no name—all of that can cause more trouble than the content itself ever would.

    Rich UGC and Accessibility

    Rich UGC gives users more room to shape the experience. That includes long posts, formatted text, uploaded images, embedded videos, and external links.

    Freedom is great for expression. It’s less great for predictability.

    One user uploads an image with text baked in. Another pastes an embed that traps keyboard focus. Someone else writes a long post using bold text as fake headings. Suddenly, your page has structure on the surface but not in the markup where assistive tech looks for it.

    Structural UGC and Exposure

    Structural UGC is where things move from “content” to “actual pages.” These are profiles, listings, job posts, directory entries, marketplace items—anything that functions like a standalone page and attracts search traffic.

    This is the kind of UGC that matters most for accessibility risk because it doesn’t sit quietly in a small section. It becomes part of the paths people use to make choices, complete tasks, or decide whether your product fits their needs.

    When structural user-generated content is inconsistent or hard to navigate, the impact shows up fast.

    Where User-Generated Content Lives (and Why Placement Matters)

    The biggest shift in risk isn’t the content—it’s where the content lands.

    A slightly messy review on a low-traffic page may not change much. But that same review sitting inside a product page with heavy purchase intent? Different story. And the same is true across the site.

    UGC becomes more consequential when it appears in places like:

    • Product pages with reviews, photos, or Q&A
    • Service pages with before/after uploads
    • Location or listing pages that customers rely on to compare options
    • Support threads and community answers that function as your “real” FAQ
    • Profiles or listings that act like landing pages and show up in search results

    All of these are places where people come to decide something. If the UGC in those areas is inaccessible—or if the tools that publish it create predictable failures—that can turn into a barrier for someone trying to participate or complete a task.

    Here’s the part most businesses miss:

    The risk isn’t just the content users post. It’s the system your platform uses to collect it, shape it, and display it.

    The templates, editors, upload flows, moderation tools, and UI patterns are where most preventable accessibility issues start. When those pieces aren’t designed with accessibility in mind, even simple UGC can become part of a complaint.

    And once UGC becomes part of the user journey, it becomes part of the accessibility equation—especially when an ADA demand letter points to barriers on real pages people depend on.

    How User-Generated Content Factors Into Website Accessibility Complaints

    At a high level, here’s what matters:

    ADA Title III focuses on equal access and non-discrimination for goods and services offered by businesses open to the public.

    Even though the ADA doesn’t spell out one single required web standard for private businesses, accessibility claims often point to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the measuring stick in practice. WCAG evaluates pages as they are delivered to users—meaning all visible content, including UGC, can contribute to non-conformance.

    And this is where UGC gets tricky.

    Responsibility for UGC Accessibility Issues

    If the content is on your domain, inside your customer journey, and presented as part of your experience, then it functions like part of the service you’re offering.

    That doesn’t mean every single user mistake equals an automatic lawsuit. But it does mean the experience can become a valid complaint when barriers prevent people from completing tasks or participating fully.

    How WCAG Evaluates UGC on Pages

    WCAG conformance is evaluated based on what’s actually on the page. That includes:

    • Content
    • UI components
    • Third-party widgets
    • User-generated content

    WCAG also recognizes the concept of partial conformance when certain issues are truly outside the author’s control. But partial conformance is not a shield you hide behind—it’s a disclosure approach, and a sign you should reduce what’s out of your control wherever possible.

    A useful comparison: the DOJ’s Title II website accessibility factsheet for public entities highlights that third-party content can still be part of a covered service when it’s baked into the experience. Title II and Title III are different, but the principle is instructive:

    If people rely on it to access the service, it needs to be accessible.

    So yes—UGC can increase risk. But it doesn’t do it randomly. It does it in predictable ways tied to control and foreseeability.

    How User-Generated Content Can Create Accessibility Barriers

    Let’s break this into a simple framework you can actually use.

    Barriers From Inaccessible UGC Tools

    This is the category that gets businesses into trouble fastest—because it’s not “user behavior.” It’s your platform UI.

    Examples:

    • Review/comment forms are missing labels
    • Error messages that aren’t programmatically connected to fields
    • Star-rating widgets that can’t be used with a keyboard
    • Upload buttons with no accessible name (“button button”)
    • No status updates during upload (screen reader users stuck guessing)
    • Rich text editors that trap focus or don’t announce controls properly
    • Captcha or anti-spam tools that block assistive tech users

    If someone can’t post, submit, edit, or participate because the controls aren’t accessible, that’s a strong accessibility barrier. And it’s directly attributable to the business experience—not the user’s content.

    If your UGC system prevents participation, that can absolutely support an ADA demand letter.

    Foreseeable Accessibility Failures

    This is where many businesses accidentally create “accessibility debt” at scale.

    Examples of foreseeable failures from UGC:

    • Users upload images without providing any alt text.
    • Links labeled only as “click here,” offering no context.
    • Flyers or announcements as images with all the text baked in.
    • Users choose font colors or backgrounds that create contrast failures.
    • Visual formatting—like bold text—to imitate headings instead of using proper structure.
    • Using emojis as bullet points or even headings without adding a text equivalent.

    If a system consistently produces inaccessible pages, it’s hard to argue the issue is “random user behavior.”

    Platform defaults shape outcomes.

    And if the outcome repeatedly blocks access, that’s a foreseeable risk—exactly the kind of pattern that shows up in accessibility complaints.

    When User-Generated Content Stops Key Tasks

    Sometimes, the UGC isn’t “broken” in an obvious way. It’s just in the wrong place.

    When the content shows up in the same high-value areas—product pages, listings, community answers, support information—the stakes rise fast. These are the pages people rely on to make choices, compare options, understand requirements, and get support.

    Even if your official content is accessible, the user journey is what counts.

    If UGC becomes the deciding factor, someone needs to:

    • Choose a product
    • Confirm compatibility
    • Understand sizing or ingredients
    • Access instructions
    • Troubleshoot an issue
    • Get help without calling

    …and if that UGC is inaccessible, it can become part of the access barrier.

    How to Make User-Generated Content Accessible by Design

    This is where accessibility becomes realistic. Because the goal is not to make every user into an expert.

    The goal is to build a system where the easiest path is also the most accessible path.

    Build Accessible UGC Submission Tools

    Treat your UGC publishing experience like a product, not an afterthought.

    At minimum:

    • Every input has a clear label.
    • Keyboard-only users can complete the flow.
    • Focus order is logical
    • Errors are clear, specific, and programmatically tied to fields.
    • Buttons announce what they do.
    • Upload state changes are announced (progress, success, failure)

    If your creation tools fail, the experience fails—no matter how good your main site is.

    Prompt Users for Necessary Details

    For image uploads, use an alt text prompt that’s friendly and short. For example:

    • A required/optional alt text field depending on context
    • A helper line like: “Describe what matters in this photo.”
    • A checkbox: “This image is decorative” (when appropriate)

    This single prompt eliminates a huge portion of predictable failures.

    And yes—this is your responsibility. Because you control the workflow.

    Limit Risky Formatting Options

    This one surprises people, but it’s important:

    If users can style content however they want, your site can become non-conforming instantly.

    Practical guardrails:

    • Limit text colors and backgrounds to approved combinations.
    • Block low-contrast combinations automatically.
    • Provide headings/lists as structured tools, not “fake formatting.”
    • Prevent users from creating “headings” by just increasing font size.

    If a page can be made inaccessible through user styling, that’s a platform design decision—not a user obligation.

    Managing Rich Media Accessibility

    If users upload video or audio:

    • Prompt for captions and/or transcripts
    • Offer a “pending accessibility” state
    • Add a follow-up workflow to complete accessibility after posting.
    • Provide a clear way to edit and add accessibility later.

    Even a basic process here reduces risk dramatically.

    Maintaining Accessible User-Generated Content Over Time

    Even with solid guardrails, user-generated content keeps moving. New posts show up, trends change, and older content stays live in the places people rely on. So the goal isn’t “fix it once.” It’s keeping the system steady.

    Check the templates that carry the most weight

    Pick a small set of UGC-heavy templates—product pages, listings, support threads, community Q&A—and review them on a regular cadence. If a component update breaks keyboard flow, labels, or focus, you want to catch it before it spreads.

    Give your team a simple playbook.

    Moderators and content teams don’t need to learn WCAG. They just need a short list of patterns to flag, like missing alt text, image-based announcements, unclear link text, or embeds that don’t work with a keyboard.

    Make reporting and fixes easy.

    Add a straightforward way to report accessibility issues, and route those reports to someone who can act. When something needs remediation, start with the least disruptive fix—add text equivalents, correct formatting, or adjust the template so the issue doesn’t keep reappearing.

    At the end of the day, WCAG looks at what’s on the page as delivered. If UGC lives in the experience, it’s part of what users have to work with—so it needs ongoing care.

    Making User-Generated Content a Strength, Not a Liability

    User-generated content will always shift and surprise you a little, and that’s fine. What matters is knowing your site can handle those shifts without creating new barriers every time someone posts a review or uploads a photo. When the basics are solid—the tools, the guardrails, the way you spot issues—you don’t have to brace for impact. Things stay steady.

    If you want help looking at the parts of your site where UGC and accessibility meet, 216digital can walk through those areas with you and point out what will actually make a difference. When you’re ready, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital and put a clear, manageable plan in place so accessibility stays reliable as your UGC grows.

    Greg McNeil

    January 21, 2026
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility, Content Creators, Content Writing, Demand Letters, Legal compliance, User-Generated Content, WCAG, Website Accessibility

  • 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
1 2 3 … 14
Next Page

Find Out if Your Website is WCAG & ADA Compliant







    By submitting this form, you consent to follow-up from 216 Digital by call, email, or text regarding your inquiry. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply STOP to opt out or HELP for help.

    216digital Logo

    Our team is full of professionals in Web Accessibility Remediation, eCommerce Design & Development, and Marketing – ready to help you reach your goals and thrive in a competitive marketplace. 

    216 Digital, Inc. BBB Business Review

    Get in Touch

    2208 E Enterprise Pkwy
    Twinsburg, OH 44087
    216.505.4400
    info@216digital.com

    Support

    Support Desk
    Acceptable Use Policy
    Accessibility Policy
    Privacy Policy

    Web Accessibility

    Settlement & Risk Mitigation
    WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA Compliance
    Monitoring Service by a11y.Radar

    Development & Marketing

    eCommerce Development
    PPC Marketing
    Professional SEO

    About

    About Us
    Contact

    Copyright © 2026 216digital. All Rights Reserved.