ADA Compliance Archives /Tag

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
A $5 Million Reality Check for Digital Accessibility
If you run a website, you probably know this routine. Digital accessibility is always on the to-do list, and everyone agrees it’s important. It comes up in planning, sometimes in design reviews, but then it often gets pushed aside for more urgent things like launches, campaigns, or new features.

Accessibility rarely feels like the thing that will break the business today.

That is, until a news story makes it impossible to ignore.

In Alcazar v. Fashion Nova, Inc., blind users alleged that the company’s website could not be used with screen-reading software, effectively shutting them out of browsing products and completing purchases. The proposed resolution included a $5.15 million settlement fund and a requirement to fix the site moving forward.

That number stopped people because it made the risk feel close. Not theoretical. Not “maybe someday.” It pushed a lot of teams to ask the questions they usually put off: Could this happen to us? How does a website problem become a multi-million-dollar issue?

This article explains what happened, why it was so expensive, and what you can do to keep your site accessible and protected.

What the Fashion Nova Settlement Signals for Digital Accessibility

Most accessibility cases end quickly. The company gets a letter, settles, and then fixes the issues. This case stood out because it was bigger, lasted longer, and involved more than one group of users.

Fashion Nova’s proposed settlement set up a $5,150,000 fund and included a commitment to make changes to the website so it would be accessible to legally blind individuals using screen readers. Fashion Nova also denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement terms, which is common in these agreements.

The way the case was set up is important because it explains why the financial risk increased.
- A nationwide class focused on forward-looking changes to the website.
- A California subclass focused on monetary relief tied to state law that allows statutory damages.
Most people focus on the $5.15 million, but the real lesson is what it stands for. Courts and plaintiffs now see online access as a serious matter, not just a small usability problem. When a retail site does not work for screen reader users, it can completely block them from shopping online.

Even if your organization is already working on digital accessibility, this case still matters. It shows how quickly putting things off can turn into a legal problem if barriers remain.

How the Case Turned Into a Digital Accessibility Class Action

The main issue in this case was simple. Blind users said the website was not compatible with screen-reading software, which kept them from using key parts of the experience.

If you have never seen someone use a screen reader to shop, problems can show up quickly.
- Product images may be announced as “image” with no helpful details.
- Buttons may be read as “button” without a label explaining what they do.
- Links may repeat or be empty, so the user hears a long list of unclear options.
- Popups and overlays can trap focus, preventing the user from moving forward.
- Checkout steps can fail because error messages are not connected to the fields.
When you use a mouse, none of these problems seem obvious. That is why they often go unnoticed for a long time.

What made this case more serious was how long it lasted and how many people it covered. Public summaries say it included a nationwide group for website changes and a California group that could get payments. This setup raised the risk and made the case more expensive to fight, even before any settlement was paid.

California adds another layer. The settlement notice describes payments to eligible California class members on a pro rata basis, up to $4,000 for a valid claim, depending on how many claims are approved. When statutory damages are part of the equation, the financial ceiling rises fast.

This is why teams should look at how a case develops, not just the final amount. When a case gets bigger and drags on, it stops being a quick legal problem. It becomes an operational problem that consumes time, focus, and money.

Why the ADA Applies to Websites in Practice

Many leaders still see the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as something that only applies to physical spaces, like ramps, doors, parking spots, and signs.

But for many businesses, the website is the front door.

Courts have increasingly treated websites and online services as part of how the public accesses goods and services, especially when the business sells to the public. In this case, the claims included the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which is one reason the settlement structure included a California subclass.

In practice, the legal question comes down to something simple: Can someone with a disability do the same basic things on your site as everyone else?

If a blind customer cannot search, browse, choose a product, and check out, their experience is not equal. That is exactly what the ADA is meant to fix, even online.

Why WCAG Became the Working Standard for Digital Accessibility

Teams often wonder: If the ADA does not give technical website rules, how do you know what counts as “accessible”?

In practice, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), became the common reference point because it is measurable. It gives teams clear criteria for things like text alternatives, keyboard access, labels, focus order, and error handling. It also gives auditors a shared way to evaluate what is working and what is failing.

That matters because vague goals do not hold up under pressure. Saying “we tried” is hard to prove. Following WCAG is easier to test, track, and defend.

This is also where many organizations get tripped up. They treat WCAG like a one-time checklist, run a scan, fix a batch of issues, and then move on.

But the sites that get into trouble usually have something else going on. Constant updates. Many hands touching content. Third-party tools are getting added without review. A brand-new design system that did not start with accessibility requirements.

As the site evolves, barriers reappear—both new ones and old ones you thought were resolved.

The Hidden Costs That Show Up Before a Lawsuit

Most teams do not mean to ignore accessibility. They just get caught up in the rush to keep the site running.

Risk often grows fastest in familiar environments.
- E-commerce sites with large product catalogs and heavy imagery
- Marketing sites with frequent landing pages and promotions
- Sites that use popups for discounts, chat, or cookie consent
- Platforms with filters, carousels, and dynamic menus
- Teams that rely on third-party plugins and scripts
In these setups, small mistakes compound. One missing label becomes a pattern across dozens of pages. One inaccessible modal becomes a blocker across major flows.

Then the human cost shows up.

A customer tries to make a purchase and cannot. They try again later and still have trouble. They contact support and get a workaround that takes extra effort. Over time, it starts to feel like the site was not made for them.

This is when reputational damage begins, even if no one posts about it online. The loss of trust starts long before any legal action.

Lessons You Can Apply Before Risk Turns Into Disruption

Here are the most important lessons for teams who know the basics and want a strategy that works over time.

Start With the Flows That Keep Your Business Running

Pick the tasks your customers must complete. Product search. Navigation. Product detail pages. Cart. Checkout. Account creation. Lead forms. Support contact.

If those flows work well with a keyboard and a screen reader, you are reducing the highest risk first.

Fix the Foundation Before Polishing the Edges

A strong baseline usually comes from a few core areas.
- Semantic headings that match the page structure
- Meaningful names for links and buttons
- Labels and instructions for forms
- Clear error messages that are connected to inputs
- Keyboard support for menus, modals, and interactive widgets
- Text alternatives for meaningful images and icons
These are just the building blocks that help users move through your site without getting stuck.

Treat Content as a First-Class Accessibility Surface

Many digital accessibility problems are content problems. Missing alt text. Vague link text like “click here.” Headings are used for style instead of structure. Images that contain key text with no alternative.

If marketing and content teams are not involved, the site can slip back into old problems, even after a big effort to fix things.

Audit on a Schedule and After Major Changes

Automated scans help, but they are not enough. You also need hands-on testing with real assistive technology. If you release updates often, add small checks to your process so you catch issues early.

Watch Your Third-Party Tools

One script can introduce a major barrier. Popups and overlays are common offenders because they can trap keyboard focus or hide content from assistive tech.

Treat vendor tools as if you built them yourself. Test them, test again after updates, and ask vendors tough questions before you launch.

Building an Approach That Stays Stable

Digital accessibility is easier to handle when it is not just a last-minute fix.

That usually means a few operational moves.
- Add accessibility acceptance criteria to tickets for new features.
- Include accessibility checks in design reviews, not just in QA.
- Build accessible components once, then reuse them.
- Document decisions so new team members do not repeat mistakes.
- Train teams in short, role-based sessions tied to real work.
This approach turns accessibility from a rushed fix into a regular practice. It also makes improvements easier to keep up with when priorities change. That is how digital accessibility becomes part of everyday work, not just something tracked in a spreadsheet.

When “Later” Becomes Harder to Ignore

The Fashion Nova settlement highlights a reality many teams now face. Online access is no longer optional for brands that serve the public. It is closely linked to civil rights, user trust, and legal risks that can grow if accessibility problems are not fixed. What seems manageable now can become much harder if those gaps are ignored.At 216digital, we can help develop a strategy to integrate WCAG 2.1 compliance into your development roadmap on your terms. If you are looking for clarity on where to start or how to strengthen what you already have in place, our team offers a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing to help you move forward with confidence.
Greg McNeil

December 19, 2025

Web Accessibility Remediation

Accessibility, ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, Unruh Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, 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
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 Lawsuits: Can You Be Sued Again During Remediation?
When a business gets pulled into ADA lawsuits over its website, the first instinct is usually simple: “Fix it, fast.” Very quickly, though, another question creeps in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

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

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

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

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

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

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

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

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

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

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

Haynes v. Hooters

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

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

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

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

What Courts And Opposing Counsel Actually Look At

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

Two Moments That Matter Most

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

When Remediation Can Strengthen Your Position

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

Patterns Vs. Isolated Mistakes

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

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

Documentation As Protection

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

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

What “Good-Faith Effort” Looks Like In Practice

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

Start With A Full, Expert-Led Audit

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

Prioritize The Issues That Truly Block Users

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

Build A Realistic Remediation Roadmap

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

Communicate With Users—Carefully And Honestly

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

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

Navigating ADA Lawsuits While Improving Your Website

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

Keep Legal Counsel Closely Involved

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

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

Avoid Moves That Look Like Avoidance

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

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

Common Missteps That Invite Repeat Claims

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

Relying Only On “Quick-Fix” Tools

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

Treating Accessibility As An Afterthought

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

Ignoring Content And Third-Party Risk

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

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

Turning Remediation Into A Long-Term Accessibility Program

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

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

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

Moving Forward Without the Constant “What If”

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

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

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

November 19, 2025

Legal Compliance

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

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

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

Two Laws, One Powerful Combination

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

The ADA: A Federal Baseline for Accessibility

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

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

The Unruh Act: California’s Added Layer of Risk

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

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

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

When One Claim Becomes Hundreds: The Class Action Multiplier

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

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

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

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

State-Level Accessibility Laws on the Rise

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

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

How Small Gaps Turn Into Large Settlements

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

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

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

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

1. Conduct Regular Accessibility Audits

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

2. Strengthen Digital Accessibility

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

3. Train Staff Across Departments

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

4. Create a Clear Response Plan

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

5. Explore Legal Insurance

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

Staying Ahead of the Risk

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

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

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

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

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

October 28, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, Unruh Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, web accessibility lawsuits
ADA Title II Conformance Mistakes to Avoid

Let’s start with a familiar scene.

A resident with low vision tries to pay a utility bill online. The button text fades into the background. They zoom in, squint, and finally give up. Across town, a veteran downloads a benefits form—but the PDF won’t open in their screen reader. They call, wait on hold, and eventually hear the same line everyone dreads: “Try again later.”

These moments rarely make headlines, but they happen every day. And they’re exactly what ADA Title II conformance is designed to prevent.

With new deadlines approaching, the clock is officially ticking. The Department of Justice has set clear expectations: every website, mobile app, and digital document must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards to be considered accessible.

Still, even with those expectations in place, many agencies stumble—not from neglect, but from complexity. Outdated systems, legacy PDFs, limited budgets, and competing priorities all pull in different directions.

This guide outlines ten of the most common pitfalls local governments encounter—and how your team can avoid them before small issues grow into time-consuming, costly problems.

1 | Waiting Too Long to Begin ADA Title II Conformance

One of the most common mistakes is simply waiting. Waiting for next year’s budget, a redesign, or until “things calm down.” But accessibility work takes time—often months, sometimes years—especially when legacy systems or vendor-managed platforms are involved. Every delay widens the gap and makes remediation more expensive.

Start Small, but Start Now

Begin with a WCAG 2.1 AA audit that targets your highest-traffic, highest-risk pages—payment portals, permit applications, emergency alerts. Use the findings to build a phased plan: tackle quick fixes first, then move into deeper remediation like PDFs or interactive content.

Momentum matters more than perfection. Each resolved issue moves you closer to meaningful accessibility—and lasting ADA Title II conformance. But while hesitation can stall progress, so can taking the wrong kind of shortcut.

2 | Relying on Widgets or “Quick Fixes”

When deadlines loom, shortcuts start to look tempting. Accessibility widgets and overlays promise instant compliance, but the data tells a different story. Over 20% of ADA web lawsuits in 2024 involved sites using overlays, and many of those tools introduced new barriers for assistive technology users.

Treat Them as Temporary Support at Best

Widgets don’t repair flawed code—they mask it. Pair automated scans with manual testing to catch what machines miss. True accessibility isn’t something you install; it’s something you build, maintain, and test continuously. Even agencies that avoid quick fixes can still lose momentum when they misunderstand what an audit actually means.

3 | Treating the Audit as the Finish Line

An accessibility audit is a starting point, not a success story. It reveals what’s broken but doesn’t fix it. Too often, agencies check the box once the report arrives, assuming the work is done. Six months later, those same issues remain—and the deadline looms closer.

Turn the Audit Into a Roadmap

Assign clear ownership, set realistic timelines, and track each fix to completion. The goal isn’t to admire the findings; it’s to act on them. An audit shines the light, but ADA Title II conformance only comes from follow-through. Once remediation begins, it’s also essential to remember that accessibility extends beyond the desktop experience.

4 | Overlooking Mobile Accessibility

For many residents, your mobile site or app is their primary touchpoint with local government. If that experience isn’t accessible, your services aren’t either. Yet mobile testing often gets pushed aside until the very end—when changes are most expensive to make.

Test Early and Test on Real Devices

WCAG 2.1 includes mobile-specific guidance on touch targets, gestures, and orientation. Make sure forms resize correctly and navigation works without a mouse. Accessibility should follow the user, not the screen size. And while mobile access is crucial, so are the documents that so many residents rely on for daily interactions.

5 | Ignoring Accessibility in Digital Documents

Even when web pages pass compliance checks, PDFs and other downloadable materials often don’t. Forms, meeting agendas, and reports are some of the most common—and most problematic—files on public sites. The DOJ is clear: if a document provides public information or access to a service, it must be accessible.

Audit Your Digital Library

Start with frequently downloaded or required documents. Train staff to tag PDFs correctly or, when possible, convert them to HTML pages. Each accessible file removes another barrier and brings your agency closer to full ADA Title II conformance. Of course, even well-prepared teams can find their progress derailed by one common factor: vendors who don’t share the same standards.

6 | Not Holding Vendors Accountable

Even when third-party vendors manage your website, accessibility responsibility remains yours. Public agencies can’t outsource compliance. That’s why contracts matter as much as code.

Bake Accessibility Into Every Partnership

Specify WCAG 2.1 AA requirements, mandate assistive-technology testing, and require documentation at handoff. Accessibility clauses shouldn’t live in the fine print—they should be measurable deliverables written into the contract. Without vendor accountability, accessibility can erode quietly with each update. And even with vendor alignment, one final validation step ensures your work actually functions as intended.

7 | Skipping Manual and Assistive-Technology Testing

Automated tools are valuable, but they can’t replicate human experience. Navigation traps, mislabeled buttons, and confusing reading order often pass automated checks unnoticed.

Manual Testing Closes That Gap

Use screen readers, voice navigation, magnifiers, and keyboard-only controls to simulate how real people interact with your site. Better yet, invite users with disabilities to test and provide feedback. Their insights catch what automation never will—and validate genuine ADA Title II conformance. Still, even the most accessible site today can fall out of compliance tomorrow without ongoing monitoring.

8 | Neglecting Ongoing Monitoring

Accessibility isn’t a one-time project; it’s ongoing maintenance. A single CMS update or design tweak can reintroduce barriers.

Make Monitoring Routine

Schedule quarterly manual reviews and monthly automated scans. Keep a visible feedback form on your website so residents can report issues directly. Treat accessibility like preventative care: small, consistent checks that protect long-term health. But even with regular testing, the strongest defense is an informed team that knows how to prevent barriers before they happen.

9 | Underestimating Accessibility Training

Technology identifies issues, but people prevent them. Without training, the same mistakes—missing alt text, unlabeled forms, inaccessible PDFs—keep returning.

Invest in Continuous Education

Provide annual, role-specific training for content authors, developers, and procurement staff. Keep it practical: short sessions, clear checklists, and ongoing refreshers. When accessibility knowledge becomes second nature, compliance becomes culture. And when that culture takes root, it’s worth sharing it publicly.

10 | Failing to Publish a Public Accessibility Statement

A public accessibility statement isn’t a formality—it’s a promise. It tells residents, We’re committed, we’re listening, and we want your feedback.

Publish a Concise Statement

Reference your WCAG standard, list contact information for support, and update it at least once a year. This simple gesture builds transparency and trust—cornerstones of inclusive digital governance.

ADA Title II Conformance Is About People, Not Just Policy

Reaching ADA Title II conformance isn’t just about compliance—it’s about people. It’s about ensuring that every resident can access essential public services with independence and dignity.

When your platforms are accessible, seniors can pay their bills without help. Parents can find school updates easily. Veterans can apply for benefits confidently.

That’s not a technical milestone—it’s a civic one.

Start early. Build steadily. Keep accessibility alive through training, monitoring, and accountability. Compliance may be the mandate, but inclusion is the mission.

If your agency is ready to turn goals into measurable progress, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. We’ll help you navigate these ten pitfalls and build a roadmap for sustainable, equitable access for every resident you serve.

Greg McNeil

September 30, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Title II, ADA Website Compliance, 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
VPAT vs ACR: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters
If you’ve ever been asked for a VPAT or an ACR and felt your stomach drop, you’re not alone. These acronyms often appear in RFPs, procurement conversations, and compliance checklists—and can leave even experienced teams scrambling to figure out what’s actually being requested. Understanding the difference between a VPAT and an ACR isn’t just technical trivia. It can mean the difference between winning a contract, avoiding legal risk, and showing that your organization takes accessibility seriously.

This guide breaks it all down: what a VPAT is, what an ACR is, how they differ, and how to create them with confidence.

Absolutely — here’s that section updated with the requested subheader formatting:

What Is a VPAT?

A VPAT—short for Voluntary Product Accessibility Template—is a standardized document created by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to report how well a digital product meets accessibility standards like WCAG, Section 508, and EN 301 549.

Think of the VPAT as a structured questionnaire. It asks you to evaluate your product feature by feature and indicate whether each requirement is supported, partially supported, or not supported, along with explanations. The most recent version is VPAT 2.5, which comes in multiple editions to meet different regulatory needs: WCAG, 508 (for U.S. federal agencies), EU (for European procurement), and INT (for global organizations).

A Typical VPAT Includes
- Product name, version, and date of evaluation
- Standards referenced (WCAG 2.1, Section 508, EN 301 549)
- Testing methods used
- Tables showing conformance levels for each criterion
- Brief remarks or explanations where needed
It’s important to note that the VPAT itself is voluntary—there’s no federal law requiring you to complete one unless it’s part of a procurement process or client request. And because VPATs are self-reported, their quality depends on your honesty and expertise. A VPAT is an essential starting point but doesn’t guarantee real-world usability for people with disabilities. Usability testing and independent audits remain critical for a complete accessibility picture.

What Is an ACR?

An ACR, or Accessibility Conformance Report, is the completed version of a VPAT. If the VPAT is the blank template, the ACR is the filled-in, actionable report. It’s a snapshot of your product’s accessibility at a given point in time, often after thorough testing.

Where the VPAT provides structure, the ACR provides substance. It includes:
- Specific findings for each standard
- Narrative explanations for partial or non-support
- Workarounds or mitigation strategies
- Planned remediation timelines
How Testing Builds Trust

The strongest ACRs are grounded in a variety of testing methods, not just automated scans. Manual code reviews can catch nuanced issues that tools miss. Testing with assistive technologies like screen readers, magnifiers, or voice input tools reveals how real users navigate your product. Including results from usability sessions with people who have disabilities can also add powerful credibility. Documenting these methods in your ACR shows buyers and procurement teams that your results are thorough, reliable, and rooted in real-world experience.

Comparing VPAT vs. ACR: Core Differences

Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, VPATs and ACRs play different roles:
- Template vs. Report: The VPAT is the empty template; the ACR is the completed, shareable report.
- Level of Detail: A VPAT lists conformance levels, but an ACR goes deeper with context, user impact notes, and remediation plans.
- Who Creates Them: VPATs are often drafted internally by product or compliance teams. ACRs may be internally created or validated by third-party auditors to add credibility.
- Audience: VPATs are useful for internal planning and tracking. ACRs are intended for procurement officers, enterprise buyers, and compliance teams who need assurance that accessibility has been tested and documented thoroughly.
This distinction is crucial—submitting only a VPAT when an RFP requests an ACR could disqualify you from consideration.

Best Practices for Creating VPATs and ACRs

Getting these documents right takes more than filling out a form. Follow these practices to create credible and effective reports:
- Use the Latest Template: Work from VPAT 2.5 or later to align with current standards like WCAG 2.1 or 2.2.
- Be Transparent About Gaps: Overstating conformance can hurt credibility. Clearly indicate “Partially Supports” or “Does Not Support” when needed, and explain why.
- Add Detailed Remarks: Go beyond a yes/no answer. Include context on who is impacted, how severe the issue is, and whether a fix is planned.
- Document Testing Methods: Specify whether testing involved automated tools, manual reviews, assistive technology testing, or user testing. This adds weight to your ACR findings.
- Update Regularly: Accessibility isn’t one-and-done. Refresh your VPAT and ACR with each major release or remediation cycle so they reflect the current state of your product.
Procurement-ready Checklist
- Product name, version, and date are clearly listed
- Standards cited (WCAG, 508, EN 301 549) match buyer requirements
- Conformance ratings are accurate and supported with evidence
- Testing methods and tools are documented in plain language
- Known issues, workarounds, and fix timelines are included
- Jargon is avoided—language is clear for non-technical readers
- Document is reviewed and refreshed with each major product update
Conclusion: Building Confidence Through Transparency

The VPAT gives you the structure, but the ACR brings it to life. Together, they are essential for demonstrating conformance, preparing for procurement, and showing that you take inclusion seriously.

At 216digital, we view accessibility documentation not as a burden, but as a pathway to trust and opportunity. A well-crafted ACR helps you thrive in competitive markets by proving your commitment to accessibility and inclusion.

If you’d like guidance on creating either document—or aligning both with the latest standards—schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital. Our team will walk you through every step, from drafting a VPAT to publishing a credible ACR, helping you move from paperwork to real-world accessibility.
Greg McNeil

September 11, 2025

Legal Compliance, Testing & Remediation

Accessibility, ACR, ADA Compliance, Legal compliance, Section 508, VPAT, WCAG, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
Accessibility for Websites: Why One Version Is Enough
You may have heard this before—or even thought it yourself: “If our main site is too complex, we’ll just build a simple, text-only version for people who use assistive technology.”

On the surface, that seems like a smart fix. If making your main site accessible feels overwhelming, why not create a separate version that looks simpler and easier to use? For years, many businesses believed this was the shortcut to meeting ADA requirements without reworking their entire website.

But here’s the problem: a separate “accessible site” is not the best answer—legally, ethically, or practically. Real accessibility for websites means making your main site usable for everyone, not sending people to a stripped-down side door.

Why the “Separate Accessible Site” Myth Lives On

So why do people still think a second site is a good idea? One reason is that it feels easier. Making changes to an existing site can seem complicated and costly, while building a quick, text-only version looks faster and cheaper.

There’s also the idea that people who are blind or have low vision “just need text.” That thinking misses the bigger picture. Accessibility for websites covers much more than plain text—it’s about making sure every feature, tool, and piece of content can be used by everyone, no matter their ability.

Why It Fails: Standards and Legal Risk

This is where the shortcut starts to unravel. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) apply to all web content, not just simplified versions. Nowhere do the guidelines suggest that a simplified, alternate version of a site fulfills compliance.

Take color contrast, for example. WCAG requires a minimum contrast between text and background across every page. Even if you create a plain version, your main site still has to meet those standards.

The U.S. Department of Justice agrees. In April 2024, new rules made it clear that public entities can’t offer inaccessible main sites with “alternate” accessible versions, except in rare situations where no other option is possible. Courts have backed this up, too. In one case, DOT vs. SAS, an airline was fined $200,000 after trying to meet accessibility rules with a separate assistive site. In the end, they still had to fix their main site.

In short, accessibility for websites isn’t about offering an alternate route. It’s about making sure the front door works for everyone.

The Real Problems With Dual-Site Strategies

Even if the legal side didn’t matter, the practical downsides are hard to ignore.

Keeping two sites in sync is a constant challenge. Every blog post, product update, or policy change must be added to both. It’s all too easy for the “accessible” version to fall behind, leaving users with outdated or incomplete information.

Then there’s the user experience itself. Imagine being told you can’t use the same website as everyone else—that you have to go through a different door. That separation feels unwelcoming, even insulting. Most users don’t want fewer features; they want the same experience, just built in a way they can use.

And here’s another snag: text-only sites often cut out interactive tools, forms, or multimedia. For someone who needs keyboard-friendly navigation, that’s not helpful—it’s limiting. In trying to fix one barrier, you end up creating new ones.

Finally, a dual-site setup complicates your own operations. Analytics, personalization, and user tracking get split in two, which makes it harder to understand how people interact with your brand online.

Why Building Accessibility Into the Main Site Works Better

When you build accessibility into your main site, everyone benefits.

Captions help people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but they also help anyone watching a video in a noisy environment. Alt text helps people using screen readers, but it also boosts your site’s SEO. Clear navigation supports users with motor disabilities, but it also makes the site faster for power users who prefer keyboard shortcuts.

Accessibility for websites also saves money in the long run. Many fixes—like adding alt text, adjusting headings, or improving color contrast—are low-cost and sometimes even free. Building accessibility into your normal workflow prevents expensive, large-scale repairs later.

Most importantly, an accessible main site builds trust. It shows customers that your brand is modern, inclusive, and committed to fairness.

Are There Times a Separate Version Is Okay?

Only in rare situations. If you’re using a third-party tool that can’t be fixed right away, a temporary alternate version may help. But it should be:
- Clearly linked and easy to find
- Fully equal in content and function
- Phased out as soon as your main site is fixed
Think of it like a patch, not a permanent solution. The goal should always be accessibility for websites built directly into the primary site.

Building an Accessibility-First Mindset

So what should you do instead? Shift your thinking from “quick fix” to “accessibility-first.”

Start by auditing your current site against WCAG. Find the biggest barriers and prioritize fixing those. Build new features with progressive enhancement so they’re usable by everyone from the start. Test with real users, not just automated tools—especially people with disabilities whose feedback will reveal issues you can’t see yourself.

And most importantly, make accessibility part of your normal workflow. Fold it into design reviews, QA testing, and content updates. Keep users in the loop by being transparent about your efforts. Progress is valuable, and users will notice your commitment.

Conclusion: One Site, For Everyone

The idea of a “separate accessible version” might look like an easy answer, but in practice, it creates more problems than it solves. It’s harder to maintain, sends the wrong message, and leaves users without the features they need.

True accessibility for websites means one site that includes everyone. It’s about designing digital spaces where people don’t need a back door—they walk through the same front door as everyone else.

If you’re ready to leave alternate versions behind and move toward an accessibility-first strategy, consider scheduling an ADA briefing with 216digital. We’ll show you how WCAG works in real-world practice, point out your greatest opportunities, and help you make your main site truly accessible—for everyone.
Greg McNeil

August 13, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Web Accessibility, WCAG Compliance, WCAG conformance, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

What an ADA Demand Letter for a Website Is

The Key Parts of an ADA Demand Letter

Header and Complainant Information

Statement of Alleged Violations in an ADA Demand Letter

Requested Action in an ADA Demand Letter

Deadline and Next Steps

Legal References and Signature

Is the Letter Real? A Quick Verification Checklist

How to Move Ahead After an ADA Demand Letter Lands

What the Fashion Nova Settlement Signals for Digital Accessibility

How the Case Turned Into a Digital Accessibility Class Action

Why the ADA Applies to Websites in Practice

Why WCAG Became the Working Standard for Digital Accessibility

The Hidden Costs That Show Up Before a Lawsuit

Lessons You Can Apply Before Risk Turns Into Disruption

Start With the Flows That Keep Your Business Running

Fix the Foundation Before Polishing the Edges

Treat Content as a First-Class Accessibility Surface

Audit on a Schedule and After Major Changes

Watch Your Third-Party Tools

Building an Approach That Stays Stable

When “Later” Becomes Harder to Ignore

Where Title II and Title III Fit in ADA Web Accessibility

Who Title II Covers for Government Web Accessibility

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

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

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

1. Clarify How the ADA Applies to You

2. Map Your Full Digital Surface

3. Audit Against WCAG 2.1 Level AA

4. Prioritize Remediation by Impact

5. Integrate Accessibility Into Delivery

6. Align People and Vendors Around Shared Expectations

7. Monitor, Document, and Adjust

Using Title II and Title III Insight to Shape Sustainable Accessibility

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

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

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

Why Websites Are Vulnerable To Repeated Claims

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

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

Haynes v. Hooters

What Courts And Opposing Counsel Actually Look At

Two Moments That Matter Most

When Remediation Can Strengthen Your Position

Patterns Vs. Isolated Mistakes

Documentation As Protection

What “Good-Faith Effort” Looks Like In Practice

Start With A Full, Expert-Led Audit

Prioritize The Issues That Truly Block Users

Build A Realistic Remediation Roadmap

Communicate With Users—Carefully And Honestly

Navigating ADA Lawsuits While Improving Your Website

Keep Legal Counsel Closely Involved

Handling Communications With Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Avoid Moves That Look Like Avoidance

Common Missteps That Invite Repeat Claims

Relying Only On “Quick-Fix” Tools

Treating Accessibility As An Afterthought

Ignoring Content And Third-Party Risk

Turning Remediation Into A Long-Term Accessibility Program

Moving Forward Without the Constant “What If”

Two Laws, One Powerful Combination

The ADA: A Federal Baseline for Accessibility

The Unruh Act: California’s Added Layer of Risk

When One Claim Becomes Hundreds: The Class Action Multiplier