ADA Archives /Tag - 216digital

What Is Your ADA Website Risk?
You’ve likely read a headline about an ADA website lawsuit and instantly worried about your own site.

You know these lawsuits are out there. You’ve heard about demand letters landing out of nowhere. But how close is that risk to your website? Is your site a likely target… or are you losing sleep over something you don’t have a clear way to measure?

A lot of people who work on websites sit in that same uneasy space:
- Worried a letter will show up right before a busy season or launch
- Hearing mixed messages about what the ADA expects online
- Unsure whether they’re focusing on the right problems—or missing something big
Meanwhile, the numbers keep climbing. Digital accessibility lawsuits reached 4,187 cases in 2024. Current tracking puts 2025 on pace for roughly 4,975 cases—a jump of about 20%. These cases are not limited to major national brands. Retailers, hospitality, professional services, and local businesses of all sizes are in the mix.

From our perspective as a team at 216digital, the hardest part for most teams is not a lack of care. It’s the uncertainty. It is difficult to plan when you don’t know your website’s risk of being targeted. That’s the gap the ADA Website Risk Profile is designed to address: giving website teams something more solid than instinct to work from.

Making Sense of ADA Website Risk in a Shifting Landscape

Part of that uncertainty comes from the legal “grey area” around how courts treat websites.

A commonly cited example is Gil v. Winn-Dixie, in which a blind customer challenged a grocery chain because he could not use its website with a screen reader. Different courts treated the website differently and debated whether it counted as a “place of public accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That back-and-forth created confusion and left room for aggressive litigation strategies. The end result: more questions than clear direction.

However, while courts work through definitions, plaintiffs’ firms are not waiting. Specialized firms and recurring “tester” plaintiffs look for websites with obvious barriers. In some jurisdictions, tester standing is still recognized, and serial plaintiffs have filed hundreds or even thousands of cases over the last decade.

Many organizations don’t think seriously about legal exposure until a demand letter shows up—often on a Friday afternoon when the team is already stretched thin. By that point, choices narrow and the pressure rises.

How One Client’s Threat Changed Our Approach

Our risk work started with one very real scare.

In 2018, a long-time client contacted us after receiving an ADA noncompliance threat. This was an organization with a strong culture of inclusion and a site already built with accessibility in mind. They were trying to do the right thing. The letter still came.

For our CEO, Greg McNeil, it was personal. It was about protecting a client who genuinely cared about access and still felt blindsided. That moment was the beginning of an effort to understand ADA website risk not as an abstract idea, but as something that shows up in real inboxes and real budgets.

Over the years that followed, our team at 216digital:
- Reviewed and analyzed nearly 25,000 digital ADA lawsuits
- Tracked recurring red flags and the specific issues named in complaints
- Studied how a small cluster of law firms and repeat plaintiffs select targets
- Completed close to 1,000 remediation and response projects, from full-site WCAG work to urgent post–demand letter help
That combination of pattern analysis and hands-on remediation is the foundation of the assessment our team offers today.

What the ADA Website Risk Profile Actually Is

The ADA Website Risk Profile is a complimentary, structured assessment that estimates the relative likelihood that a website will attract an ADA noncompliance claim, based on known lawsuit patterns.

It is focused on ADA website risk—the chance of being targeted—rather than offering only a general snapshot of accessibility health.

In practice, the assessment:
- Evaluates technical and experiential issues that plaintiffs’ firms tend to flag
- Uses patterns drawn from thousands of digital ADA lawsuits
- Places a website into a relative risk level, such as lower, moderate, or higher
- Connects the findings to practical, prioritized recommendations
It does not replace a full Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) audit or comprehensive accessibility testing, and it is not legal advice or a guarantee that a lawsuit will never arrive. Instead, it gives teams a realistic, pattern-informed view of how their site may look through the lens of current enforcement behavior.

How the Assessment Works, Step By Step

The process is designed to be understandable to people who work in strategy, design, development, and content—not just legal teams or accessibility specialists.

Step 1: Baseline Review of Key Areas

We start with a focused look at core templates and flows: the home page, key product or service pages, important forms, and journeys like checkout, booking, or account creation. This is not a line-by-line code audit. It mirrors the paths that testers and law firms usually follow when seeking barriers.

Step 2: Mapping Findings to Known Red Flags

Next, we map what we find against patterns that show up in complaints, including:
- Common WCAG failures that are often cited in filings
- Structural and UX issues that tend to raise attention, such as broken flows for keyboard or screen reader users
- Contextual factors like industry, site complexity, heavy use of media, and certain third-party tools
Step 3: Assigning a Relative Risk Level

Using an internal database of past cases and ongoing tracking, we place the website into a relative risk level. The goal is not to label the site as “good” or “bad.” Instead, the aim is to show how it compares to others that have been targeted recently. This step is led by humans: our accessibility specialists and risk analysts review the findings together so the result reflects both technical reality and lawsuit behavior.

Step 4: Turning Findings Into a Plan

Finally, we translate the assessment into a clear set of next steps. These include immediate “must-fix” items that create a strong litigation hook. Medium-term improvements support both accessibility and user experience. Longer-term considerations can be folded into future redesigns or platform changes.

What You Walk Away With

The goal is not to hand over a dense document that no one reads. It is to support better decisions.

First, there is a clear picture of where the site stands. Your ADA website risk level is explained in clear, practical language with phrases like, “Right now, your site looks a lot like others that have been targeted in the last two years,” or, “You are in a comparatively lower-risk group, with a handful of high-impact fixes to address.” That kind of framing can help you talk about risk with both leaders and technical teams.

You also receive targeted recommendations ranked by impact:
- A short list of urgent issues most likely to catch a plaintiff’s eye
- A queue of improvements that support accessibility, usability, and risk reduction at the same time
- Notes about third-party components—overlays, widgets, or plugins—that may be raising your exposure
Equally important, there is time to talk through the results. Teams can review their assessment with our analysts, ask why certain items matter more than others, discuss constraints, and determine what is realistic for the next sprint or quarter. The aim is to move from general worry to a manageable set of priorities.

Why This Matters Beyond “Avoiding a Lawsuit”

It is easy to think about ADA website risk only in terms of avoiding a demand letter, but that view is too narrow.

Fixing barriers usually improves the experience for everyone—customers with disabilities, older users, and people on mobile devices or slower connections. It often reduces friction in key journeys, lowers support volume, and strengthens trust in your brand.

There is also a sharp difference between preparing and reacting. When a team reacts to a lawsuit, costs can include legal fees, settlements in the tens of thousands of dollars, and significant time pulled away from planned work. Preparing early with a clear view of risk tends to be calmer and more deliberate. It is also easier to fold into normal planning.

Accessibility sits alongside privacy, security, and performance as a core part of website governance. Once you understand your ADA website risk, it becomes easier to decide how it fits into the wider risk picture.

How the Risk Profile Fits Into Your Longer-Term Strategy

For many organizations, the assessment is the beginning, not the end.

A realistic path often looks like this: complete the complimentary assessment, fix the highest-risk issues, move into deeper testing of core user flows and templates, and add monitoring so new content and features do not reintroduce old problems.

We know most teams are balancing product roadmaps, design refreshes, and seasonal campaigns. Our aim is to help you prioritize, not to hand you an impossible to-do list. Your ADA Website Risk Profile becomes one of the tools you use to make calmer, smarter decisions with the resources you already have.

Whether you are planning a redesign or simply trying to get through your next busy season, a clear view of risk makes it easier to focus on what matters most.

What to Do Next

Here is the short version. ADA website lawsuits are not slowing down. The legal standards can be messy, but plaintiffs’ behavior follows patterns—and those patterns can be studied. Our team at 216digital has spent years analyzing those patterns and working with organizations on hundreds of remediation and response projects. The ADA Website Risk Profile turns that experience into a practical, complimentary assessment your team can actually use.

If you help guide a website and are concerned about ADA website risk, two simple steps can move you forward:
1. Request an ADA Website Risk Profile to get a clear snapshot of your site’s status.
2. Schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital to talk through what those results mean for your roadmap, budget, and long-term accessibility goals.
The briefing is a low-pressure chance to ask questions about risk, WCAG, lawsuit trends, and practical trade-offs—before a demand letter forces those decisions on you. Accessibility and legal risk do not have to be overwhelming. With a clear assessment, a focused plan, and an experienced partner walking alongside you, the work becomes manageable and genuinely achievable.
Greg McNeil

November 24, 2025

Testing & Remediation

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, risk mitigation, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
ADA Guidance Documents: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t
You’re ready to make your site accessible, but the “how” still feels scattered—too many opinions, not enough plain steps. You want a path that fits busy days, real budgets, and a team that’s already stretched. Maybe you’ve got a dozen tabs open and the same question lingering: “Where do we start?”

This guide gives you that grounding. We’ll explain why some public resources shifted (including ADA guidance documents) and what hasn’t changed about your responsibilities—then offer a calm, repeatable way to keep improving without the overwhelm.

Behind the Headlines: What Actually Changed

For years, website owners leaned on plain-English materials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn legal text into everyday decisions. In March 2025, the DOJ withdrew a set of those materials—older how-to pages and pandemic-era Q&As. These ADA guidance documents weren’t binding law, but they acted like a friendly sidebar: “Are headings structured so screen readers can move around?” “Do forms have clear labels and announced errors?” “Do videos ship with captions by default?”

The intention was to “streamline.” The result, for many teams, was losing that quick translation layer. The ADA didn’t change. The shortcut explanations did.

What Are ADA Guidance Documents—and Why They Mattered Online

Guidance sits between regulations and real life. It doesn’t create new rules; it shows what good looks like. For web teams, that practicality was gold. It helped product leads, designers, developers, and content editors turn big goals into small, repeatable habits:
- Use semantic headings and landmarks so navigation is predictable.
- Ensure keyboard access works everywhere—and that focus is easy to see.
- Write meaningful alt text and descriptive link text.
- Tie error messages to the right fields and announce them clearly.
- Caption video and provide transcripts for audio.
In short: fewer guesses, fewer do-overs, fewer users getting stuck.

What This Means Day to Day

When the handy reference disappears, hesitation sneaks in. A button ships without an accessible name. Focus gets trapped in a modal. A hero banner looks great but misses contrast by a hair. A form works with a mouse but not a keyboard. None of these are headline news alone; together they slow someone’s day—or stop it. Without familiar ADA guidance documents, teams second-guess what’s “good enough,” and releases start to feel inconsistent.

But the baseline didn’t budge. The ADA still requires effective, equal access online. Courts still enforce it. And people still expect to complete tasks without extra hoops. The safest—and most respectful—move is to keep going, visibly and steadily.

Why Waiting for New Guidance Is Risky

It’s tempting to pause and hope for a new official playbook. Three reasons to keep moving instead:
- Legal exposure. Courts across the U.S. recognize that inaccessible sites and apps can violate the ADA. That trend didn’t reverse.
- Reputation and trust. Accessibility issues show up in reviews and social posts; quiet fixes made early rarely do.
- Real people, real tasks. When login, checkout, or account recovery breaks for assistive-tech users, you’re not just risking a suit—you’re losing customers.
Silence—or withdrawn ADA guidance documents—is not a safety net.

What Web Compliance Looks Like Right Now

Even without those quick-reference pages, your backbone is solid:
- Standards: Treat WCAG 2.1 Level AA as today’s target and map sensible upgrades toward WCAG 2.2. WCAG gives your team a shared, testable language for “accessibility.”
- Process: Fold accessibility into everyday work—requirements, design reviews, coding practices, content checks, QA, and release.
- Evidence: Keep lightweight notes on what you tested, what you fixed, and what’s queued. Perfect isn’t required; active, good-faith effort matters.
A Calm, Practical Web Plan (Built for Busy Teams)

Think “little and often,” not “big and never.” Small habits—kept—beat big intentions that stall.

1) A One-sentence North Star

“Everyone should be able to find, understand, and complete key tasks on our site—without special instructions.” When trade-offs get messy, let that sentence break the tie.

2) Make It Visible In Design

Bake contrast rules, focus styles, and ARIA patterns into your design system. Add a five-item gate to design reviews: contrast, text scaling, focus order, error visibility, and respect for motion/animation preferences. These guardrails prevent expensive rework later.

3) Test Every Release—Quickly And Consistently
- Run an automated scan for the easy wins (contrast flags, missing labels).
- Do a keyboard-only pass for navigation, focus order, skip links, menus, and modals.
- Add a screen-reader spot check (one core task in NVDA or VoiceOver) to confirm headings, landmarks, labels, and announcements make sense.
- Media check: captions/transcripts and no surprise auto-play.
- Ten focused minutes can save hours of cleanup.
4) Prioritize By User Impact

Fix blockers first—anything that keeps someone from starting, finishing, or recovering a task (focus traps, unlabeled inputs, errors that aren’t announced, inaccessible captchas). Then clean up the friction.

5) Write For Clarity

Descriptive link text beats “click here.” Headings should be meaningful and in order. Error messages should be specific and tied to their fields. Plain instructions help everyone, not just screen-reader users.

6) Train in Micro-moments

Skip the marathon. Rotate five-minute refreshers: writing alt text, managing focus in modals, structuring headings, testing keyboard paths. Small lessons stick because people can finish them.

7) Invite Feedback—And Close the Loop

Publish a simple accessibility statement with a real contact path. When someone reports an issue, acknowledge it, fix it, and thank them. That response builds trust and brings problems to you early.

8) Document Just Enough

Keep a rolling log (tickets or a short doc) noting checks, defects, fixes, and what’s next. It’s team memory, proof of progress, and a calmer conversation if you ever need to show your work.

Beyond Compliance: Better Web, Better Business

Compliance is the floor. Inclusion is the opportunity. The same choices that meet WCAG also reduce support friction and lift conversions: clearer forms, reliable focus, readable text, captions that help commuters and quiet-office viewers alike, motion that respects user settings. You don’t need fresh ADA guidance documents to make that case—the impact shows up in your analytics, your reviews, and the quiet relief of users who can simply get things done.

A Clear, Steady Path Forward

Here’s the bottom line: the ADA still stands, and the withdrawn ADA guidance documents didn’t change what “good” looks like online. Rebuild the convenience layer yourself—standards as guardrails, small checks each release, micro-training that sticks, open feedback, and just-enough documentation.

Start small. Keep going. Write down what works. That’s how you protect your brand, respect your users, and give your team a sustainable way to ship accessible experiences. And if a short, expert walkthrough would help you set that cadence, consider scheduling an ADA briefing with 216digital—calm, practical, and focused on your next few steps.
Greg McNeil

September 18, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Web Accessibility, WCAG, Website Accessibility
ADA Title II Compliance: Your 2026 Countdown Begins
April 2026 is fast approaching, and it marks a pivotal shift in how government and educational institutions must deliver their digital services. In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized new rules under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring that public entities make their websites and mobile apps conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards.

This update creates a clear and enforceable standard for digital accessibility—and a fixed timeline. Large entities serving 50,000 or more people must achieve ADA Title II compliance by April 24, 2026. Smaller entities, including towns, special districts, and small school systems, must follow by April 26, 2027.

This isn’t just about meeting regulations. It’s about ensuring that everyone—including people with disabilities—can use essential public services online, from paying utility bills to registering for classes or receiving emergency alerts.

Understanding the Scope of ADA Title II Compliance

The rule applies to nearly all state and local government organizations, including:
- Cities, counties, and municipalities
- Public universities and school districts
- State agencies and special districts such as transit, water, or fire authorities
It also indirectly includes any private vendors that design, build, or maintain digital platforms for these organizations. Even if a vendor creates or operates your digital platform, responsibility for accessibility—and legal liability—remains with the public entity.

This broad scope means development, design, content, and procurement teams must work in sync. Accessibility is no longer a “nice to have” feature or a patchwork afterthought. It must be an intentional part of the lifecycle of digital services.

The New Baseline: WCAG 2.1 Level AA

For years, WCAG has served as the de facto best practice for digital accessibility. Now, it’s the legal benchmark. ADA Title II compliance requires conformance to WCAG 2.1 Level AA across websites and mobile apps.

The WCAG framework is built on four key principles:
- Perceivable: Information must be presented in ways users can recognize and process—through sight, sound, or touch.
- Operable: All functionality must be usable via a range of input methods, such as keyboards or voice controls.
- Understandable: Content and interfaces should be clear, consistent, and predictable.
- Robust: Code must follow accepted standards to work reliably with assistive technologies.
For developers, this translates into semantic HTML, accessible form structures, proper use of ARIA where needed, support for keyboard navigation, sufficient color contrast, captions and transcripts for media, and responsive design that works across devices.

Key Deadlines and Limited Exceptions

The DOJ’s final rule establishes staggered deadlines to account for the varying resources of different entities:
- April 24, 2026: Large public entities (50,000+ population) and major school districts must comply.
- April 26, 2027: Smaller municipalities, rural counties, special districts, and small school systems must comply.
Some content is exempt: archived web materials, third-party content not posted by the entity, individualized password-protected content (like a specific utility bill), preexisting social media posts, and older electronic documents not currently in active use. These exceptions are narrow and shouldn’t be treated as a loophole—most public-facing content still must be accessible.

Why This Deadline Signals a Shift

This rule does more than set a date. It establishes a uniform digital standard across public services—and that’s transformative.

By naming WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the clear benchmark, it ends ambiguity. Public trust is strengthened as people with disabilities gain guaranteed equal access. Legal risk drops as the gray areas that once fueled costly lawsuits and settlements disappear. At the same time, accessibility is pushed to the forefront of digital strategy instead of being treated as an optional side task.

Accessibility now sits at the center of how public organizations plan, design, build, and maintain their digital platforms.

A Phased Roadmap Toward ADA Title II Compliance

Because comprehensive remediation can take months—or longer for complex ecosystems—waiting until late 2025 risks running out of time. A phased approach helps build steady momentum.

Phase 1: Assess and Organize (Now through Mid-2025)

Begin by identifying who will lead accessibility efforts. Take inventory of every public-facing digital property, including web apps, mobile apps, forms, and documents. Then schedule a thorough accessibility audit, prioritizing the most used or most critical services like billing systems, course registration, or emergency alerts.

Phase 2: Plan and Prioritize (Mid-2025 through End-2025)

Use your audit findings to map out a remediation plan tied to your budgeting cycles. Secure executive buy-in early. Accessibility should be positioned as a matter of governance and public trust, not just a technical task assigned to IT.

Phase 3: Remediate and Test (Early 2026)

Implement code-level fixes, update design patterns, and correct content barriers. Use both automated and manual testing, and incorporate usability testing with people who use assistive technologies. Their insights will surface barriers that automated tools often miss.

Phase 4: Embed in Procurement and Governance (Ongoing)

Update procurement language to require WCAG 2.1 AA conformance for all vendors. Include accessibility testing, documentation, and verification milestones in contracts. Establish internal policies for accessible design and development practices going forward.

Phase 5 : Maintain Accessibility Long-Term (Post-Deadline)

Schedule recurring audits, provide continuous staff training, and build accessibility checks into your development and content workflows. Establish a feedback channel for users to report barriers and ensure those reports trigger timely remediation.

Common Pitfalls That Derail Progress

Even well-intentioned teams can lose ground as deadlines approach. These are common issues to avoid:
- Stopping at the audit: An audit reveals issues; it doesn’t fix them. Plan for remediation, re-testing, and validation.
- Over-relying on automation: Automated tools catch only a fraction of WCAG criteria. Manual reviews are essential.
- Leaving vendors unchecked: Accessibility obligations don’t end at the contract signature. Require proof of ADA Title II compliance.
- Relying on overlays or widgets: These often fail to solve root issues and can introduce new barriers.
Beyond April 2026: Sustaining ADA Title II Compliance

ADA Title II compliance is not a project that ends on launch day—it’s an ongoing obligation. Accessibility should become a standing component of your governance model.

Include accessibility reviews in your CI/CD pipelines to catch regressions early. Track and adopt updates to WCAG—2.2 has already arrived, and 3.0 is in development. Maintain documentation of policies, testing protocols, and training records to demonstrate due diligence if audited or challenged.

And don’t overlook communication. Sharing progress with your community shows accountability and reinforces public trust. Transparency builds confidence, both internally and externally.

Getting Started Now

You don’t need to overhaul everything at once. Early, visible progress helps build support and momentum. Start by:
- Conducting a comprehensive audit to establish a baseline
- Fixing accessibility barriers on high-traffic pages and applications
- Training staff who create or maintain digital content
- Updating vendor contracts and procurement templates with WCAG 2.1 AA language
- Implementing ongoing monitoring to prevent regressions
Even these first steps will make your platforms more usable while laying the foundation for full compliance.

Turning Deadlines Into Opportunity

The 2026 and 2027 deadlines for ADA Title II compliance are closer than they seem, but they’re absolutely achievable. With a deliberate plan, you can meet the requirements without last-minute scrambles—and create more inclusive digital services in the process.

This is more than a legal mandate. It’s a chance to improve the experience for everyone who relies on your digital platforms. Starting now allows you to spread out the workload, secure the resources you need, and avoid costly last-minute vendor rushes.

If you need support, 216digital partners with public entities to conduct audits, provide remediation, train teams, and implement ongoing monitoring.

Now is the moment to prepare. Schedule an ADA briefing and set your roadmap in motion—on time, on mission, and built to last.
Greg McNeil

September 15, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA, ADA Title II, ADA Website Compliance, Title II, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

Do You Need a Web Accessibility Audit or a VPAT?

Digital compliance isn’t one-size-fits-all. Depending on your organization’s goals, you may need an accessibility audit, a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT®), or both. The real challenge is matching the deliverable to the job in front of you. If you’re navigating ADA, Section 508, WCAG, EN 301 549, or enterprise procurement requirements, understanding how audits and VPATs differ—and how they work together—can save time, reduce risk, and strengthen your position in competitive markets.

This guide explains what accessibility audits and VPATs are, how they differ, when to use each, and how they can complement one another.

What Is an Accessibility Audit?

An accessibility audit is a deep, hands-on evaluation of your digital product—website, web app, mobile app, software, or document—against recognized standards such as WCAG 2.1/2.2 Level AA and, when applicable, Section 508. Although automation has a role, a credible audit centers on expert manual testing and real-world use.

A typical audit blends three modes of evaluation that build on one another:

Automated triage to surface easy-to-spot patterns (e.g., missing alt text, color contrast flags, form input associations) and help size the work.
Expert manual review of templates, components, and user flows against WCAG success criteria, including focus management, semantics/landmarks, ARIA usage, error handling, and dynamic states.
Assistive technology and keyboard testing to validate actual usability—screen readers (e.g., NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver), zoom and reflow, high-contrast modes, and full keyboard operation.

Strong audits don’t stop at a list of defects. They provide actionable guidance: prioritized findings, severity and user impact, code-level recommendations, component-level patterns, and a retest plan. Many organizations also incorporate user testing with people with disabilities to capture lived-experience insights that technical checks alone can miss. The result is a roadmap your team can execute—not just a scorecard.

What Is a VPAT?

A VPAT® is a standardized disclosure that becomes your Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR). It doesn’t test; it reports what testing found. Each criterion is mapped to a status—Supports, Partially Supports, or Does Not Support—with remarks that define versions, platforms, assistive-technology pairings, and known limits. Choose the correct edition (WCAG, Revised Section 508, EN 301 549, International), date-stamp the ACR, and clearly state the product and environment scope. A defensible VPAT is evidence-backed—ideally by a recent audit plus targeted verification on the declared platforms.

In short: an audit discovers and validates; a VPAT declares and documents.

Accessibility Audit vs VPAT: Key Differences

Aspect	Accessibility Audit	VPAT (ACR)
Primary purpose	Identify issues; deliver remediation guidance; validate usability	Communicate conformance status to buyers and regulators
Audience	Internal teams: product, engineering, design, compliance	External stakeholders: procurement, clients, regulators
Format	Narrative report with prioritized findings and fixes	Standardized template leading to an ACR with criterion-by-criterion statements
Evidence	Manual/AT testing, sometimes user testing with people with disabilities, plus automation	Summaries of conformance based on testing evidence
Timing	Best before launch/redesign, after significant releases, or upon risk events	Best during RFPs, renewals, market entry, or when a contract requires it
Outcome	Improved accessibility and user experience	Procurement-ready disclosure and contractual clarity
Update cadence	With each major release or accessibility milestone	Whenever scope, features, or conformance materially change

With the differences in view, here’s how to use each deliverable at the right moment.

When to Have an Accessibility Audit

An audit should come before you make broad claims of compliance. It is the groundwork that ensures your product meets the standards you plan to cite.

Consider commissioning an audit when you are:

Preparing for launch or a major redesign. Early findings are cheaper to fix and easier to standardize into reusable components.
Responding to risk. If you’ve received a complaint, demand letter, or internal escalation, an audit clarifies actual exposure and prioritizes remediation.
Improving product quality. Teams aiming to raise UX quality for everyone—faster task completion, fewer errors, better forms—use audits to remove barriers that frustrate all users, not only those with disabilities.
Planning a VPAT. If a VPAT is on the horizon, a current audit supplies the evidence and remarks you’ll need to make defensible statements.

Without an audit, a VPAT can drift into guesswork—an avoidable liability in regulated procurement.

When to Have a VPAT Prepared

A VPAT becomes essential when you need formal proof of accessibility for sales, purchasing, or funding.

Typical triggers include:

RFPs and vendor onboarding in government, higher education, healthcare, and large enterprise.
Contract renewals or marketplace listings where accessibility is non-negotiable.
International expansion that introduces EN 301 549 or other jurisdictional requirements.

Treat the VPAT/ACR as a living document. Update it after major releases, platform additions, or meaningful improvements so procurement teams see a current and accurate picture.

Decision rule: If an external party will evaluate your conformance (RFP, renewal, marketplace, grant), you’ll need an ACR (VPAT) grounded in a current audit; otherwise start with the audit alone.

Do You Need Both?

In regulated or enterprise procurement, the default answer is yes. If you are selling to government, higher education, healthcare, or large enterprises—or you intend to make public conformance claims—you need both an audit and a VPAT (ACR). The audit establishes factual evidence of how the product performs against WCAG/Section 508 in real use. The VPAT communicates that evidence in the standardized format buyers expect.

As a rule of thumb: use an audit to know; use a VPAT to show. When disclosure is part of sales, renewals, or public listings, sequence your work as audit, remediate, then prepare the VPAT so statements are current, precise, and defensible.

Once you know when to use each, it helps to see how they reinforce one another.

How They Reduce Risk Together

Audits and VPATs mitigate different classes of risk that often compound if handled in isolation. The audit reduces product and legal risk by finding and prioritizing barriers before they become complaints or claims and by providing implementable fixes. It also creates a repeatable testing pattern—templates, flows, and assistive-technology pairings—that your team can reuse release after release.

The VPAT reduces commercial and contractual risk. It removes friction in procurement, sets accurate expectations about platforms and known limits, and documents the scope under which conformance was verified. Procurement teams look for alignment between your ACR remarks and the audit artifacts. When those line up—versions, dates, and assistive

technologies—friction drops and credibility increases. Working together, the audit improves the thing; the VPAT aligns the promise. That alignment closes the gap between user reality and contractual language—the place most disputes arise.

Practical Scenarios

Federal RFP: You need both. Commission an audit covering the exact scope in the RFP (versions, browsers, AT). Remediate high-impact issues, verify fixes, then publish a VPAT/ACR that cites that evidence with precise remarks.

Small e-commerce: Prioritize the audit. Focus on core purchase flows and forms, implement fixes, and establish a light retest cadence. Skip the VPAT until an enterprise buyer or marketplace explicitly requests one.

University adoption: The buyer will require a VPAT from the vendor. A responsible vendor conducts an audit first, then produces a VPAT grounded in that evidence.

Monthly SaaS cadence: Establish a rhythm: periodic audits on shared components and critical journeys; targeted verification after impactful changes; VPAT updates tied to material shifts in scope or before major renewals. Keep the VPAT’s scope and dates synchronized with your latest audit window.

Final Thoughts

Accessibility audits and VPATs aren’t interchangeable; they serve different, complementary purposes. The audit digs into how your product actually behaves and shows you how to fix issues. The VPAT communicates that conformance in a format procurement teams trust. Organizations that treat the VPAT as living, evidence-based disclosure—and audits as an ongoing quality practice—build trust, reduce risk, and win more consistently.

Ready to move from claims to confidence? Schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital—we’ll review your product context, prioritize a first sprint, and outline a clear path from audit and remediation to a defensible, procurement-ready ACR.

Greg McNeil

September 10, 2025

Testing & Remediation, Uncategorized

Accessibility, Accessibility Audit, ADA, custom accessibility audits, VPAT, WCAG, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

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

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

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

The Court’s Response

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

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

The court flagged several red flags:
- Fernandez had filed dozens of similar complaints, often within the same week, using the same legal template.
- He claimed to have tried to purchase items ranging from leather jackets to African necklaces to martial arts gear—an unusually wide variety for a single consumer.
- Despite claiming he couldn’t navigate the site, he referenced specific product features, pricing, and even a promotional discount—suggesting that the site may not have been as inaccessible as alleged.
To dig deeper, the court authorized a forensic review of Fernandez’s browsing history and potentially a deposition, signaling a strong interest in validating the sincerity of his claims and patterns consistent with serial ADA plaintiffs.

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

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

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

Judge Natasha Merle dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, even though the defendant had argued mootness due to recent accessibility fixes. The judge found that:
- Black failed to explain how the website’s issues prevented him from visiting the physical location.
- He didn’t attempt to get the same information through other means, like a phone call or search engine—undermining his claim of urgency.
- There was no compelling reason offered for why this particular restaurant mattered, especially given New York City’s wide range of similar dining options.
While not central to the decision, the judge noted that Black had filed 27 similar lawsuits within the previous year, a pattern that mirrors the behavior of serial ADA plaintiffs.

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

4. Why These Rulings Matter

Together, these decisions point to a more assertive judicial approach to ADA website litigation driven by serial ADA plaintiffs. Courts are no longer content to accept vague allegations and templated filings. Instead, they’re insisting on:
- Specific, credible claims of harm
- Clear intent to return or complete a transaction
- Evidence to support those claims, such as browsing history or meaningful engagement with the site
In Fernandez, the court is even considering deposing the plaintiff and conducting a forensic review of his device—an extraordinary step that shows how seriously judges are taking the issue of standing.

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

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys

Courts are demanding more. To pursue these cases in federal court, plaintiffs must provide:
- Documented evidence of actual attempts to use the site
- Specific descriptions of what went wrong and how it impacted them
- A credible reason for why they’d return
Vague complaints and mass filings are less likely to survive a motion to dismiss. They may also trigger closer scrutiny of the plaintiff’s litigation history—especially for known serial ADA filers.

For Businesses

These rulings present an opportunity to push back when faced with questionable lawsuits. Businesses should consider:
- Challenging standing early, especially if the complaint lacks details or appears templated
- Requesting jurisdictional discovery to verify the plaintiff’s claims
- Tracking patterns of repeated filings by the same individuals or firms
Additionally, some plaintiff firms are now shifting lawsuits to state courts, where standing requirements are generally less demanding. Businesses should prepare for this potential change in forum.

For the Legal System

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

6. Looking Ahead

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

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

A Turning Point—and a Call to Act

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

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

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

June 12, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, serial ADA plaintiffs
Title II Compliance Amid Political Uncertainty
The political landscape around disability rights can shift quickly. Yet, for state and local governments, the legal requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) do not vanish. Title II of the ADA makes sure people with disabilities have equal access to government programs and services. Even when leaders talk about changing rules, the obligation to comply with Title II remains.

A recent court case, Ellerbee v. State of Louisiana, shows how serious these rules are. This case has become a wake-up call for many. It sends a clear message: do not wait to make your digital services accessible, or you might face a lawsuit.

ADA Title II Compliance: What Hasn’t Changed

Under Title II, state and local governments must provide equal access to public services. This includes websites, online forms, and mobile apps. The ADA has always covered digital content, even though earlier laws did not spell it out as clearly as modern rules do. Some governments may be waiting for new regulations to make changes. But that is risky because Title II has long required equal access online.

Recent regulations point to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the standard. But just because these rules are more precise now does not mean the core obligation is new. Governments that do not meet these accessibility standards can still face legal action from private citizens or advocacy groups. Federal or local policy shifts do not take away the chance of a lawsuit.

Ellerbee v. State of Louisiana: A Court-Ordered Reality Check

In January 2025, a judge ruled that the State of Louisiana must make its websites accessible right away. The plaintiff, Beau Ellerbee, is blind. He sued Louisiana because he could not use its government websites. Louisiana claimed it did not have to follow accessibility standards yet because new federal deadlines were not in effect. However, the judge disagreed. The court said the ADA’s rules already exist and cannot be brushed aside.

This ruling is important. It reminds all governments that waiting for future deadlines is dangerous. The court made it clear that Title II compliance is an immediate duty, not an optional one. If a website is not accessible, people can sue and win—right now. Governments should note this and avoid ignoring their responsibilities.

Political Uncertainty and Compliance: What We Know and Don’t Know

Many leaders wonder if changing political priorities will affect Title II compliance. Some worry that the rule could be canceled. While it is possible, changing a major rule is hard. It takes a long time to undo a regulation, so it will not happen overnight.

Federal enforcement efforts can shift. Some administrations may push more or fewer investigations into accessibility. However, lawsuits from individuals and groups will not just stop. They can still file legal cases when they face barriers. Relying on reduced enforcement is risky. The question is: should you wait? The answer is no. Even if federal agencies slow down, private lawsuits will keep coming. Governments must stay prepared.

Upcoming Deadlines for Digital Accessibility

Here are the upcoming deadlines for digital accessibility:
- Large municipalities (population more than 50,000) and public universities: April 2026
- Smaller municipalities (population under 50,000) and special districts: April 2027
Essential Steps for Title II Compliance

But as we have learned, these deadlines do not mean you can wait until the last minute. Being proactive is essential. Governments should take the following steps now:
1. Conduct Accessibility Audits: Check your websites, mobile apps, and PDFs to find barriers. Consulting with a specialist firm like 216digital to conduct a thorough audit can also be a wise investment.
2. Prioritize High-Impact Services: Focus first on key areas like emergency services, tax portals, and public benefits. These are used most often.
3. Implement Ongoing Training: Train your staff, especially those involved in website management and content creation, about web accessibility.
4. Monitor and Maintain Compliance: Accessibility is ongoing. After fixing issues, keep testing, new accessibility issues will arise over time.
5. Document Efforts: Keep records of your audits, training sessions, and updates. This shows good faith in meeting Title II requirements.
Legal Precedents Are Changing—Is Your Business Ready?

Although the recent uproar in Louisiana focused on Title II, there is a growing concern that courts could apply the same level of scrutiny to Title III, which governs private businesses. When judges see states being held responsible for inaccessibility under Title II, it is not a stretch to imagine them enforcing strict guidelines for private companies under Title III of the ADA.

Private online businesses that have not yet addressed accessibility may be at risk. Website accessibility lawsuits against private companies are on the rise. For instance, in 2017, federal lawsuits related to inaccessible websites and apps stood at around 814. By 2024, that number had soared to more than 4,000. If the tide can turn so quickly for state and local governments, private businesses should assume that Title III enforcement could intensify just as fast.

The Path Forward Amid Uncertainty

Political changes may create doubt, but the duty to follow Title II remains. The Ellerbee v. State of Louisiana ruling shows that waiting for future deadlines can lead to immediate lawsuits. If you manage a government website or any public-facing digital service, now is the best time to address accessibility needs.

The same principle applies to private businesses. If you have questions about making your online presence meet ADA guidelines, consider scheduling an ADA briefing with 216digital. Our team of accessibility experts can develop strategies to integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap on your terms so you can focus on what matters — your business.
Greg McNeil

March 4, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Title II, Title II, Web Accessibility
Legal Compliance for Websites: A Guide to Accessibility
Legal compliance for websites is a key step toward building a welcoming digital space.

When you create a website, you want as many people as possible to enjoy it. This goal includes users with disabilities who may rely on assistive technology.

This guide will explain the main laws and guidelines that affect website accessibility. It will also share tips on how to keep your site compliant. By the end, you will have a better grasp of how to protect your business and create a better online experience.

Why Accessibility Matters

Accessibility is about making sure that all users, including those with disabilities, can interact with your website. People have different needs. Some use screen readers to hear text read aloud, while others navigate websites by keyboard or voice commands.

When your website is accessible, you open your doors to a bigger audience. You also reduce legal risks. Many businesses have faced lawsuits for failing to meet these standards. A commitment to legal compliance and accessibility can improve customer trust and brand image.

Major Accessibility Laws in the United States

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is a civil rights law that bans discrimination based on disability in many areas of public life. Though it does not mention websites directly, courts often view online spaces as public places. This means that business websites need to be usable by people with disabilities.

A growing number of lawsuits focus on ADA website violations.

Businesses in retail, hospitality, and beyond have faced legal action. By prioritizing legal compliance and following accepted guidelines, you can lower this risk and help more people access your site’s content.

2. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 508 applies to federal agencies and other organizations that receive federal funding. It requires that electronic and information technology, including websites, be accessible. This standard guides agencies on what to do, and it also helps private businesses learn from these rules.

If you work with government agencies, Section 508 legal compliance might be required in your contracts. This can impact design choices and the tools you use to develop your website.

International Regulations

You may operate in more than one country, or you might have users from around the world. Different regions have their own accessibility laws. A few common examples include:
- European Accessibility Act (EAA): Covers digital products and services in the European Union.
- Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA): Requires organizations in Ontario, Canada, to meet set standards.
- Australian DDA (Disability Discrimination Act): Digital accessibility is included in its guidelines.
These laws share a common goal: allowing all people, regardless of ability, to take part in online activities.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to follow these standards can lead to serious problems for your business.
1. Legal Risks: Lawsuits can be expensive. Defending even one lawsuit can cost tens of thousands of dollars or more, depending on the complexity of the claims.
2. Reputational Damage: People may avoid businesses that do not serve all users equally. This can lead to negative press or social media criticism.
3. Lost Opportunities: Many potential customers have disabilities. If they cannot use your website, they will go elsewhere.
WCAG includes different levels of compliance: A, AA, and AAA. Many legal compliance guidelines suggest aiming for WCAG 2.1 Level AA. This level covers the most common issues without being too restrictive for most businesses.

The Role of WCAG in Accessibility

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), created by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), are the most widely accepted standards for web accessibility. They are built around four main ideas:
1. Perceivable: Users must be able to see or hear your content in some form. This includes captions for videos and text alternatives for images.
2. Operable: Your site’s features must be usable by different input methods, such as a keyboard.
3. Understandable: Both the content and design should be clear.
4. Robust: The site should work well with various assistive technologies, like screen readers.
WCAG includes different levels of compliance: A, AA, and AAA. Many legal guidelines suggest aiming for WCAG 2.1 Level AA. This level covers the most common issues without being too restrictive for most businesses.

Best Practices to Maintain Legal Compliance

Run an Accessibility Audit

Start by checking the current state of your website. Several free and paid tools can evaluate your site’s accessibility. Examples include:
- WAVE: Highlights problem areas on your pages.
- Google Lighthouse: Checks performance and accessibility within Google Chrome.
Automated scans are helpful, but combine them with real user tests if possible.

Fix Common Barriers

After your audit, address any problem areas. Common fixes include:
- Adding alt text to images.
- Correcting color contrast so the text is easier to read.
- Ensuring forms and buttons are usable by keyboard navigation.
If your videos or audio files do not have captions or transcripts, add them.

Train Your Team

Everyone who posts content or updates your website should know basic accessibility practices. Teach them how to add alt text, format headings correctly, and keep color contrast in mind. Regular training prevents future mistakes that can harm accessibility.

Adopt a Clear Design and Layout

Use consistent headings, simple menus, and clear labels on your forms. This supports users who rely on screen readers or have cognitive challenges. It also creates a more pleasant experience for all users.

Review and Update Regularly

Websites change over time. New pages, features, or media can create fresh challenges. Perform routine reviews to catch any new issues. Keep track of updates to WCAG or other legal compliance guidelines.

Practical Tools to Assist with Accessibility
- Screen Readers (NVDA, JAWS): Let you hear how your site sounds to a user with visual impairments.
- Color Contrast Checkers (WebAIM): Show you if your text and background colors meet recommended contrast levels.
- Keyboard Testing: Move through your site using only a keyboard. Watch for traps or areas where you cannot reach buttons and links.
These tools help you spot issues quickly. They also help you confirm that your fixes are working as expected.

Additional Resources

If you need more guidance, look into these sources:
- WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind): Provides tutorials and articles on creating inclusive websites.
- The A11Y Project: A community-driven site with accessibility resources, tips, and tools.
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): The official home of WCAG, plus other technical resources.
Learning about accessibility is an ongoing process. Changes in technology and updates to the law mean there is always more to discover.

Moving Forward with an Inclusive Approach

Making your website accessible isn’t just about legal compliance—it’s about creating a space where everyone feels welcome. By keeping accessibility in mind, you’re not just protecting your business; you’re also showing your customers that you value their experience and needs.

Accessibility doesn’t have to be overwhelming. Start with small, intentional steps to improve your site and keep building from there. If you’re unsure where to start or want guidance, let us help. Schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital and get practical advice tailored to your business. Together, we can make your website an inclusive and inviting space for all users.
Greg McNeil

January 22, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA, EAA, Legal compliance, Section 508, WCAG, WCAG Compliance
Is ADA Compliance the Same as 508 Compliance?
If you’ve worked on a website or digital content, you know accessibility isn’t just important—it’s essential. But here’s a common question that trips up even seasoned professionals: Are ADA compliance and Section 508 compliance the same thing? While they may seem similar at first glance—both aim to make digital experiences accessible—their differences are crucial, and misunderstanding them could mean focusing on the wrong standards for your audience or business.

In this article, we’ll unpack the distinctions and overlaps between ADA and Section 508 compliance. By the end, you’ll not only understand what sets them apart but also how to use this knowledge to make your website truly accessible.

What is ADA Compliance?

ADA stands for the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark law passed in 1990 to ensure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA covers a wide range of accessibility issues, from physical spaces (like ramps and elevators in buildings) to digital spaces (like websites and online services). In the context of websites, ADA compliance means making sure your website is accessible to people with disabilities.

For websites, ADA compliance means ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities. This includes making your site usable for:
- Visually impaired individuals using screen readers.
- Deaf or hard-of-hearing users who rely on captions or transcripts.
- People with motor disabilities who may use keyboards or alternative input devices instead of a mouse.
While the ADA itself doesn’t give specific rules for websites, it requires businesses to ensure that their digital services are accessible. This is where guidelines like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) come into play. The WCAG provides a set of standards for making websites accessible to everyone, including people with various disabilities.

What is Section 508 Compliance?

Section 508 is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a law designed to improve access for people with disabilities, especially in the workplace and in government. Section 508 specifically focuses on ensuring that federal agencies and contractors make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible. This includes websites, software, videos, and other forms of digital content used by government employees and the public.

Section 508 compliance is more specific than ADA compliance because it lays out detailed technical standards for web accessibility. Unlike the ADA, which applies to all public and private entities, Section 508 is focused specifically on federal government entities and those that do business with the government.

The Key Differences Between ADA and Section 508 Compliance

Now that we have a basic understanding of both standards let’s take a look at some of the key differences:

Scope of Applicability

ADA compliance applies to all businesses, government entities, and organizations that provide public services, including websites, regardless of whether they are working with the federal government.

On the other hand, Section 508 only applies to federal agencies, federal contractors, and any organizations or companies that receive federal funding or contracts. In other words, Section 508 is more narrow in scope than ADA compliance.

Specificity of Standards

ADA compliance serves as a general guideline rather than providing specific technical or legal instructions for web accessibility. Its primary focus is on the principle of accessibility, encouraging the design of websites that are usable by individuals with a variety of disabilities. By prioritizing inclusivity, ADA compliance aims to ensure that everyone can effectively access online content. ADA compliance often refers to the WCAG guidelines for web content accessibility.

Section 508 compliance is more prescriptive, offering clear technical guidelines for web accessibility. These standards focus on things like screen reader compatibility, color contrast, keyboard navigation, and other specific details.

Enforcement

ADA compliance can be enforced through private lawsuits, meaning that individuals with disabilities or advocacy groups can take legal action if a website is not accessible. This has led to a number of high-profile lawsuits in recent years, where businesses were sued for failing to make their websites accessible.

Section 508 compliance is enforced primarily through audits and inspections conducted by the federal government. If a government agency or contractor is found to be non-compliant, they could lose funding and contracts or be excluded from future government work.

Similarities Between ADA and Section 508 Compliance

Even though there are some important differences, both ADA compliance and Section 508 compliance share several key similarities:

The Goal of Accessibility

Both ADA and Section 508 aim to make the digital world more accessible to people with disabilities. This means ensuring that websites, online services, and content are usable by people who have visual, auditory, cognitive, or motor impairments.

Use of WCAG Guidelines

Both ADA and Section 508 compliance often refer to WCAG as a standard for making websites accessible. While Section 508 has its own set of technical requirements, these overlap with many of the WCAG principles. So, if you’re working on a website, it’s helpful to familiarize yourself with WCAG standards, whether you are concerned with ADA or Section 508 compliance.

Testing for Accessibility

Both ADA and Section 508 compliance require you to test your website for accessibility. This can include using screen readers, testing keyboard navigation, checking for proper color contrast, and making sure your site works with assistive technologies like voice recognition software.

Practical Tips for Testing Your Website for Accessibility

Whether you’re aiming to meet ADA or Section 508 compliance, here are some practical steps you can take to test and improve the accessibility of your website:

Use Automated Tools

There are a number of tools that can help you check for accessibility issues, like WAVE or Lighthouse. These tools scan your site for common accessibility issues like missing alt text for images, poor color contrast, and improper heading structure. While automated tools are helpful, they shouldn’t be your only testing method.

Manual Testing

Automated tools can catch some issues, but manual testing is also essential. This might include navigating your site with a keyboard (without using a mouse) or testing your site with a screen reader like NVDA or VoiceOver to see how it works for visually impaired users.

Get Feedback from Users

If possible, have people with disabilities test your site. Getting feedback from real users is one of the best ways to identify issues you might not have thought of. You can reach out to local accessibility organizations or use user testing platforms to gather feedback.

Review Your Content

Make sure your website’s content is accessible, too. This means providing text alternatives for images, videos with captions, or transcripts and using simple, easy-to-read language.

Which Should You Focus On?

Understanding the distinctions between ADA and Section 508 compliance is critical for creating an inclusive, accessible website that meets legal standards. If you’re a business owner, ADA compliance should be your primary concern. Federal contractors and agencies, on the other hand, must adhere to Section 508 requirements.

The good news? Improving accessibility benefits everyone—not just your users, but your organization too.

Navigating these regulations can feel daunting, but you don’t have to go it alone. At 216digital, we specialize in tailored accessibility solutions to help you meet both ADA and Section 508 standards. From comprehensive audits to ongoing monitoring, we’re here to guide you every step of the way.

Ready to make your website accessible to everyone? Schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital and take the first step toward compliance and inclusivity.
Greg McNeil

November 19, 2024

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA, ADA Compliance, Section 508, Web Accessibility
ADA Lawsuits: How They’re Shaping the Internet
The Internet is an essential part of daily life. We shop, work, learn, and even socialize online. But for millions of people with disabilities, the digital world can feel like a locked door. That’s where the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) steps in. Originally designed to ensure access to physical spaces, the ADA is now playing a significant role in making sure the digital world is accessible to everyone.

Let’s dive into how ADA lawsuits are shaping the future of the Internet and why this movement towards web accessibility matters for all of us.

Why Web Accessibility Matters

Imagine trying to buy groceries online, book a doctor’s appointment, or read the news—but being unable to do so because the website isn’t accessible. This is the reality for many people with disabilities. Web accessibility aims to remove these barriers, making sure websites are usable by all, whether someone is blind, deaf, has limited mobility, or faces cognitive challenges.

It’s not just about compliance; it’s about creating a better experience for everyone. When websites are more accessible, they’re also more user-friendly. For example, features like closed captions help users with hearing impairments, but they’re also useful for anyone in a noisy environment.

How the ADA Applies to the Digital World

The ADA, passed in 1990, is a law meant to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities. While it initially focused on physical locations, it’s evolved to include digital spaces like websites, mobile apps, and online services.

Title III of the ADA requires “places of public accommodation” to be accessible. While that originally meant places like stores and restaurants, the DOJ published guidance in 2022 confirming its position that the ADA does apply to websites, stating:

“…the Department has consistently taken the position that the ADA’s requirements apply to all the goods, services, privileges, or activities offered by public accommodations, including those offered on the web.”

– U.S. Department of Justice | Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA (2022)

This shift is significant because it brings the same standards of accessibility that apply to physical spaces into the digital realm. If a website isn’t accessible, it could violate the ADA—leading to legal action.

Key Lawsuits Driving Change

Several high-profile lawsuits have set important legal precedents for web accessibility, encouraging businesses to prioritize digital inclusivity. Here are some of the most significant cases that have reshaped the digital landscape:

Robles v. Domino’s Pizza (2019)

In 2016, Guillermo Robles, a blind man, sued Domino’s Pizza because he couldn’t use their website or mobile app to order food. Robles relied on screen-reading software, but Domino’s website and app were not compatible with it, making the services inaccessible.

The case went through multiple courts, with Domino’s arguing that the ADA did not clearly apply to websites. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that the ADA does cover websites and apps if they are closely tied to a physical location that serves the public. The U.S.

Supreme Court declined to review the case, effectively affirming the lower court’s ruling. This landmark case established a strong precedent that digital services must be accessible, especially if they’re an extension of a physical business.

Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. v. Gil (2017)

In 2016, Juan Carlos Gil, a blind man who uses screen-reading software, attempted to access the website of the grocery chain Winn-Dixie but found it was incompatible with his software. Unlike Robles v. Domino’s, Winn-Dixie had no functional website components for users to complete transactions online; however, the website did allow users to refill prescriptions, access coupons, and find store locations—services that were considered extensions of its physical stores.

The federal court sided with Gil, ruling that the website’s connection to the physical stores meant it had to comply with ADA requirements. Although the Eleventh Circuit later reversed this decision, arguing that websites themselves are not necessarily “places of public accommodation,” this case still sparked important conversations about digital accessibility. It highlighted that when a website is integral to a business’s services, it must meet accessibility standards.

Bashin v. ReserveCalifornia.com (2023)

Bryan Bashin, a blind user, filed a lawsuit against ReserveCalifornia.com, a state-run site responsible for booking campsites in California’s state parks. Bashin faced numerous challenges while using the website, including unlabelled buttons and forms that his screen reader couldn’t interpret. What made this case unique was that Bashin targeted not just the website itself, but also the state contractor responsible for the website’s development and maintenance.

This lawsuit emphasized the importance of holding government contractors accountable for digital accessibility, setting a new precedent. The court ruled in favor of Bashin, making it clear that not only are government-run websites subject to ADA compliance, but so are third-party developers who manage public websites. This ruling added new pressure on contractors and developers to implement accessibility features from the start, ensuring that websites are built with inclusivity in mind.

Evolving Legal Requirements for Web Accessibility

As the number of ADA lawsuits grows, so do the legal requirements for web accessibility. While there’s no one-size-fits-all standard, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) have become the go-to benchmark. These guidelines are designed to make websites more usable for people with disabilities and cover areas like:
- Text Alternatives: Providing descriptive text for images, videos, and other non-text content.
- Keyboard Accessibility: Ensuring users can navigate sites using only a keyboard.
- Readable Fonts and Color Contrast: Make sure fonts are easy to read, and colors are distinguishable for people with vision impairments.
- Video Captions and Transcripts: Offering captions for videos and transcripts for audio content.
By aligning your website with these guidelines, you reduce the risk of legal challenges and create a better user experience for everyone.

How Businesses Are Adapting

As the legal landscape shifts, many businesses are taking proactive steps to ensure their websites comply with accessibility standards. Here are a few strategies they are employing:

Investing in Training and Resources

Many companies are now training their web development teams on accessibility standards. By understanding the principles of web accessibility, teams can create more inclusive websites from the ground up.

Conducting Accessibility Audits

Regular audits of websites can identify areas needing improvement. Companies are increasingly employing tools and experts to evaluate their sites against WCAG standards. This helps pinpoint issues like missing alt text or improper heading structures.

Integrating Accessibility Features from the Start

More businesses are making accessibility a priority during the design phase. This includes adding features such as keyboard navigation and ensuring that content is structured in an accessible way. By embedding these practices from the beginning, companies can avoid costly retrofits down the line.

Engaging with the Community

Some businesses are partnering with organizations that advocate for individuals with disabilities. By seeking feedback from actual users, they can better understand accessibility challenges and improve their websites accordingly. This not only leads to a better product but also fosters goodwill and loyalty among customers.

Long-Term Implications for the Future of the Internet

The growing emphasis on web accessibility has several long-term implications for the future of the Internet:

Increased Awareness of Inclusivity

As more companies recognize the importance of web accessibility, we will likely see a cultural shift in how businesses approach design and user experience. Prioritizing inclusivity can attract a broader audience and create loyal customers.

Legal Precedents Will Shape Standards

As more ADA lawsuits are filed, legal precedents will increasingly dictate what is considered acceptable in terms of web accessibility. Businesses will need to stay informed about these developments to avoid potential legal pitfalls.

Technological Advancements

The demand for accessible web design will likely spur innovation in technology and tools. We can expect new solutions that simplify the process of making websites accessible, from AI-driven accessibility checkers to improved assistive technologies.

A Culture of Accessibility

As web accessibility becomes a norm, future designers and developers will likely prioritize inclusivity from the outset. This could lead to a more inclusive internet overall, where all users can engage equally.

Conclusion

Web accessibility is reshaping the digital landscape, and it’s clear that the ADA’s influence is paving the way for a more inclusive internet. While compliance with these evolving standards may seem daunting, it’s ultimately about creating a digital environment where everyone can navigate and engage with ease. By enhancing accessibility, you’re not just adhering to legal requirements—you’re fostering a more user-friendly experience for all.

Instead of seeing accessibility as a burden, consider it an opportunity to make your website more welcoming and effective. It’s a chance to lead by example and demonstrate your commitment to inclusivity. If you’re curious about where your website stands, scheduling an ADA briefing with 216digital can be a great first step. Let’s shift the focus from obligation to opportunity, one accessible website at a time.
Greg McNeil

October 22, 2024

Legal Compliance, The Benefits of Web Accessibility

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, Web Accessibility
Avoid ADA Lawsuits: Lessons from Big Companies
Over the past few years, many well-known companies have faced lawsuits under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failing to make their websites accessible. From retail giants like Nike and Target to entertainment brands like Beyoncé’s Parkwood Entertainment, these companies have all encountered legal challenges due to non-compliant websites.

These cases provide an important lesson for website owners and content creators: web accessibility is not just a risk for big corporations but especially those running small businesses. Small companies are quickly becoming targets for Title III lawsuits as well. But by proactively making your website accessible, you can avoid legal trouble and enjoy several long-term benefits.

Let’s examine some of the big companies that have been sued over website accessibility and how small businesses can protect themselves.

1. Winn-Dixie: The ADA Case that Set the Standard

Winn-Dixie was one of the first major brands to face a Title III lawsuit over website accessibility. In 2017, a blind customer sued the grocery chain because its website wasn’t compatible with screen reader software. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, marking a major precedent for future cases. This case highlighted how even websites that aren’t strictly e-commerce-based can be required to meet ADA standards.

2. Domino’s Pizza: The Fight Over Online Ordering

Domino’s Pizza was sued because a blind customer couldn’t use their website and app to order food. The case gained national attention when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Domino’s argued that the ADA didn’t apply to websites, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The lesson? ADA Title III applies to digital spaces just as much as physical locations.

3. Nike: Accessibility in the Retail Space

Nike was sued for having an inaccessible website that prevented visually impaired users from making purchases. The company quickly settled the case and implemented changes, demonstrating that the cost of fighting a lawsuit can be much higher than simply fixing accessibility issues upfront.

4. Blue Apron: The Subscription Service Challenge

Blue Apron, a meal-kit delivery service, faced a lawsuit when a blind customer was unable to sign up because the website didn’t work with screen readers. Blue Apron’s case showed that even digital-first businesses are vulnerable to accessibility claims.

5. KitchenAid: The Importance of Universal Access

KitchenAid, known for its appliances, was sued after a visually impaired user couldn’t navigate their website to access product information. This case underscores that accessibility isn’t just about e-commerce; it also includes providing equal access to all the content and information on your website.

6. Fox News Network: ADA in Online Media

Even media companies aren’t immune. Fox News faced a lawsuit for not making its website accessible to people with visual impairments. News outlets, entertainment brands, and other content-heavy websites should ensure that their pages are fully compliant with ADA guidelines.

7. Beyoncé’s Parkwood Entertainment: Entertainment and Inclusivity

In 2019, a visually impaired woman sued Beyoncé’s Parkwood Entertainment, claiming that her website wasn’t accessible with screen readers. This case shows that artists, musicians, and entertainment companies are also responsible for making sure their digital content is inclusive for all.

8. H&R Block: Financial Services

Tax preparation giant H&R Block was sued over their inaccessible website. The company settled by agreeing to make its site accessible and compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). This case demonstrates that financial services are held to the same standards as retail or entertainment when it comes to web accessibility.

9. Burger King: Fast Food, Fast Accessibility Fixes

Burger King was sued when a visually impaired customer couldn’t use its website to place an order. Like many companies, Burger King settled the case by agreeing to fix its accessibility issues rather than dragging out a lengthy court battle.

10. Target: A Retailer Making ADA a Priority

Target was sued in 2006 and eventually settled, becoming one of the first major retailers to make their website fully accessible. Their case set an early example that many other companies have followed.

How Small Businesses Are Becoming Targets for ADA Lawsuits

While these cases involved large companies, small businesses are increasingly being targeted by ADA Title III lawsuits. This shift is largely due to the rise in website accessibility lawsuits in general, which have grown significantly in recent years. Small businesses are often seen as easier targets because they may lack the resources to fight a lawsuit or may be unaware of their legal obligations under the ADA.

The reality is that no business is too small to be sued over website accessibility. This means that whether you’re running a local boutique or a nationwide e-commerce store, you need to be proactive about making your site accessible.

The Benefits of Web Accessibility

Beyond avoiding lawsuits, making your website accessible offers several benefits:
- Broaden Your Audience: An accessible website can be used by people with disabilities, which represents a significant portion of the population. By making your site accessible, you’re opening your business to more customers.
- Improved SEO: Many accessibility improvements, like proper alt text for images, can also boost your search engine ranking.
- Enhanced User Experience: Accessibility improvements often go hand-in-hand with usability improvements, making your site easier to navigate for all users.
- Positive Brand Reputation: By demonstrating that your business values inclusivity, you can enhance your brand’s reputation and build customer loyalty.
How to Calculate Your Return on Investment (ROI)

When thinking about the cost of making your website accessible, it’s important to consider the return on investment (ROI). While the upfront cost of an accessibility audit or remediation might seem high, the long-term benefits far outweigh the cost of a lawsuit.

To calculate your ROI for ADA Compliance, consider:
1. Initial Accessibility Audit: This will tell you where your site currently stands and what changes need to be made. The cost will vary depending on the size and complexity of your website.
2. Implementation Costs: These are the costs associated with fixing the accessibility issues identified in the audit. Again, this can vary but should be viewed as an investment in future-proofing your business.
3. Avoided Lawsuits: The cost of fighting a Title III lawsuit can be substantial, both financially and reputationally. By being proactive, you can avoid these costs altogether.
4. Expanded Customer Base: More accessible websites mean more potential customers. The boost in revenue can quickly outweigh the costs of compliance.
How Being Proactive with Web Accessibility Offers an Incredible ROI

The companies mentioned earlier learned the hard way that it’s always better to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to website accessibility. Fixing accessibility issues after a lawsuit is filed is much more expensive than addressing them upfront. Not to mention, proactively making your website accessible can help you avoid the reputational damage that often accompanies ADA lawsuits.

Protect Your Online Business

Don’t wait for a lawsuit to take action on web accessibility. Get ahead of potential risks by ensuring your site is compliant now. At 216digital, we’re here to help you navigate the complexities of ADA compliance and safeguard your business. Schedule a personalized ADA briefing with us today to understand how you can protect your online presence, avoid costly lawsuits, and expand your customer base through an accessible website. Let’s future-proof your business together—schedule your ADA briefing now!
Greg McNeil

September 27, 2024

Legal Compliance

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Title II, web accessibility lawsuits

Making Sense of ADA Website Risk in a Shifting Landscape

How One Client’s Threat Changed Our Approach

What the ADA Website Risk Profile Actually Is

How the Assessment Works, Step By Step

Step 1: Baseline Review of Key Areas

Step 2: Mapping Findings to Known Red Flags

Step 3: Assigning a Relative Risk Level

Step 4: Turning Findings Into a Plan

What You Walk Away With

Why This Matters Beyond “Avoiding a Lawsuit”

How the Risk Profile Fits Into Your Longer-Term Strategy

What to Do Next

Behind the Headlines: What Actually Changed

What Are ADA Guidance Documents—and Why They Mattered Online

What This Means Day to Day

Why Waiting for New Guidance Is Risky

What Web Compliance Looks Like Right Now

A Calm, Practical Web Plan (Built for Busy Teams)

1) A One-sentence North Star

2) Make It Visible In Design

3) Test Every Release—Quickly And Consistently

4) Prioritize By User Impact

5) Write For Clarity

6) Train in Micro-moments

7) Invite Feedback—And Close the Loop

8) Document Just Enough

Beyond Compliance: Better Web, Better Business

A Clear, Steady Path Forward

Understanding the Scope of ADA Title II Compliance

The New Baseline: WCAG 2.1 Level AA

Key Deadlines and Limited Exceptions

Why This Deadline Signals a Shift

A Phased Roadmap Toward ADA Title II Compliance

Phase 1: Assess and Organize (Now through Mid-2025)

Phase 2: Plan and Prioritize (Mid-2025 through End-2025)

Phase 3: Remediate and Test (Early 2026)

Phase 4: Embed in Procurement and Governance (Ongoing)

Phase 5 : Maintain Accessibility Long-Term (Post-Deadline)

Common Pitfalls That Derail Progress

Beyond April 2026: Sustaining ADA Title II Compliance

Getting Started Now

Turning Deadlines Into Opportunity

What Is an Accessibility Audit?

What Is a VPAT?

Accessibility Audit vs VPAT: Key Differences

When to Have an Accessibility Audit

When to Have a VPAT Prepared

Do You Need Both?

How They Reduce Risk Together

Practical Scenarios

Final Thoughts

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

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

The Court’s Response

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

4. Why These Rulings Matter

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

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys

For Businesses

For the Legal System

6. Looking Ahead

A Turning Point—and a Call to Act

ADA Title II Compliance: What Hasn’t Changed

Ellerbee v. State of Louisiana: A Court-Ordered Reality Check

Political Uncertainty and Compliance: What We Know and Don’t Know

Upcoming Deadlines for Digital Accessibility

Essential Steps for Title II Compliance

Legal Precedents Are Changing—Is Your Business Ready?

The Path Forward Amid Uncertainty

Why Accessibility Matters

Major Accessibility Laws in the United States

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

2. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

International Regulations

Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Role of WCAG in Accessibility

Best Practices to Maintain Legal Compliance

Run an Accessibility Audit

Fix Common Barriers