ADA Lawsuit Archives /Tag

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
How Small Businesses Grapple with Web Accessibility Lawsuits
For many small business owners, the word lawsuit evokes images of high-stakes corporate battles—teams of lawyers in conference rooms, million-dollar settlements, and brands big enough to weather the storm.

But in reality, the wave of web accessibility lawsuits sweeping across the U.S. often hits much smaller targets.

In recent years, small businesses—local cafés, independent retailers, family-run service providers—have found themselves on the receiving end of legal complaints claiming their websites are inaccessible to people with disabilities. These cases don’t usually come with a warning. They arrive as letters in the mail, full of legal language and urgent deadlines, leaving owners stunned and scrambling to respond.

Unlike large corporations with compliance departments and legal reserves, small business owners are often left to figure it out on their own—what went wrong, what the law actually says, and how to move forward without breaking the bank.

And while the circumstances can feel unfair, one truth is clear: web accessibility lawsuits aren’t going away. Understanding why they happen and what you can do to prevent them is the best way to protect your business—and your peace of mind.

Why Small Businesses Are Being Targeted

The Rise of Web Accessibility Lawsuits

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in public spaces. When it was written, the internet wasn’t yet a part of everyday life—but times have changed.

Today, many courts interpret websites as “public accommodations,” putting them under the same umbrella as physical storefronts. That interpretation has opened the door for an entirely new wave of lawsuits.

Some are filed by individuals who genuinely struggle to access websites using assistive technologies like screen readers. Others, however, are part of a broader trend: serial filings from the same plaintiffs and attorneys across multiple states. These suits often focus on small businesses because they’re seen as more likely to settle quickly.

To many business owners, it feels like an ambush. One day, you’re updating your menu or uploading new photos. Next, you’re being told your website violates federal law.

Why Small Businesses Feel It More

For large companies, web accessibility lawsuits might be just another line item in the budget. But for small businesses, even a single case can threaten financial stability.

Legal fees, settlements, and remediation costs can easily climb into the tens of thousands of dollars. That’s not counting the time and emotional energy spent dealing with it. Some owners describe the experience as “devastating,” especially when they didn’t even know they were noncompliant in the first place.

Part of the problem is clarity—or rather, the lack of it. There’s no single, government-issued checklist for web accessibility. While WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) serves as the global standard, it can be difficult to interpret for non-technical teams. This uncertainty leaves small businesses vulnerable to opportunistic legal action and inconsistent enforcement.

Common Accessibility Pitfalls That Trigger Lawsuits

Accessibility isn’t just about how your site looks—it’s about whether everyone can use it.

Here are the issues most commonly cited in web accessibility lawsuits:
- Missing alternative text on images leaves screen reader users without context.
- Low color contrast makes text hard to read for people with visual impairments.
- Missing or mislabeled forms prevent users from submitting contact or checkout forms.
- Keyboard traps, where menus or modals can’t be navigated without a mouse.
- Videos without captions exclude users who are deaf or hard of hearing.
- Inconsistent heading structures, which confuse those relying on assistive tech.
Each one might seem minor in isolation—but together, they can make a site frustrating or even impossible to use for some visitors. And in legal terms, that can be enough to establish discrimination.

The Danger of Reactive Fixes

When that demand letter lands, panic is a natural response. The instinct is to fix things—fast. But rushing into patchwork solutions can backfire.

Reactive fixes often lead to:
- Rushed, costly work. Under pressure, businesses may implement quick fixes or install accessibility overlays. These promise “instant compliance” but often introduce new accessibility barriers.
- Repeat lawsuits. A settlement doesn’t guarantee safety. If underlying issues persist, another plaintiff can file again.
- Operational disruption. Time spent dealing with attorneys and developers means less time running your business.
- Reputation damage. Web accessibility lawsuits can spread quickly online, leading customers to question your values or professionalism.
A reactive mindset puts out today’s fire—but it doesn’t build long-term resilience.

A Practical Path Forward

The good news: accessibility doesn’t have to be overwhelming or financially crushing. A thoughtful, steady approach can protect your business and make your site stronger for every customer.

1. Start with a Risk Assessment

You can’t fix what you don’t know. Begin with an accessibility audit to see where you stand.

Automated tools can catch obvious issues like missing alt text or broken labels, while manual testing—especially by someone familiar with assistive tech—uncovers deeper usability problems.

Focus on the most impactful changes first: navigation, forms, buttons, and media. You don’t need to be perfect on day one, but you do need a plan.

2. Be Wary of “Quick Fix” Tools

Accessibility overlays and plug-ins often advertise themselves as easy, one-click solutions. Unfortunately, courts have already ruled that these tools do not equal compliance.

They may mask issues visually, but they rarely address the root cause in your site’s code or structure. Instead, invest your time in meaningful remediation—updates to templates, alt text, ARIA labels, and keyboard navigation. Those changes last.

3. Make Accessibility an Ongoing Habit

Accessibility isn’t a box you check once—it’s a standard you maintain.

Treat it like any other part of your content process:
- Add alt text when uploading new images.
- Check contrast when designing new banners.
- Test your forms after updates.
By embedding accessibility into daily operations, you avoid regressions and build muscle memory for future projects.

4. Document Your Efforts

Intent matters. If you’re ever challenged, showing proof of good-faith efforts can go a long way.

Keep records of audits, remediation steps, developer training, or accessibility statements. These documents show that you’re working toward compliance—not ignoring it. Courts tend to look more favorably on businesses that can demonstrate ongoing commitment, even if their site isn’t perfect yet.

5. Bring in Expert Support

Some accessibility barriers—especially those involving ARIA attributes, dynamic content, or complex UI elements—require specialized expertise. Partnering with an experienced accessibility consultant or development team ensures your fixes are accurate, lasting, and compliant.

Think of it like hiring a professional accountant during tax season. You could try to do it yourself, but expert guidance saves you from costly mistakes later.

The Upside: Accessibility as an Advantage

Many businesses come to accessibility through fear of web accessibility lawsuits—but stay for the benefits.

Accessibility isn’t just risk management. It’s good business.
- More customers. Over 70 million Americans live with a disability, representing nearly $490 billion in disposable income.
- SEO gains. Search engines reward clear structure and descriptive text—two cornerstones of accessibility.
- Better user experience. Simplified navigation and cleaner layouts make your site easier for everyone to use.
- Future readiness. Accessibility standards continue to evolve. Starting now means you’re already ahead of the next update.
When you approach accessibility as an investment in usability—not just compliance—you build trust, credibility, and customer loyalty.

A Message of Reassurance

If you’ve been hit with a lawsuit or are afraid of one coming, take a breath. You’re not alone. Thousands of small businesses are navigating the same challenges.

Yes, the system can feel unfair. But accessibility itself isn’t your enemy—it’s your opportunity to create a better experience for everyone who visits your site.

With a proactive mindset, steady progress, and expert help where needed, you can reduce risk without draining your resources.

Small, consistent improvements go further than perfection ever will.

Support, Not Scrutiny—That’s Where Change Begins

Web accessibility lawsuits have created an uneasy environment for small businesses—caught between complex rules and opportunistic claims. But the way forward doesn’t have to be reactive or defensive.

By understanding common pitfalls, focusing on meaningful fixes, and committing to accessibility as an ongoing practice, you can move from uncertainty to confidence.

Accessibility isn’t about flawless compliance overnight. It’s about inclusion, usability, and respect—for your customers, your business, and your community.

When your website works for everyone, you’re not just avoiding lawsuits.

You’re building a stronger, more resilient brand—one that welcomes every visitor, every time.

If you’re unsure where to begin or want clarity on your current risk, 216digital offers personalized ADA briefings designed to help small businesses understand their obligations, assess exposure, and chart a practical path forward.

Schedule an ADA Briefing today and take the first step toward peace of mind and long-term compliance.
Greg McNeil

September 25, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, Small Business, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
Digital Accessibility: A 2025 Midyear Reality Check
It’s only August, and 2025 is already shaping up to be a defining year for digital accessibility. The pace of change has picked up, not just in technology, but in the legal and business consequences of falling behind. According to Useablenet, a staggering 2,019 lawsuits have already been filed in U.S. courts alleging accessibility violations on websites and digital platforms as of July. That puts us on track to exceed 4,975 cases by year’s end—a 20% increase over 2024.

So what’s behind the uptick? And what does it mean for online businesses trying to stay compliant, competitive, and ahead of the curve? In this midyear report, we’ll look at the legal shifts, industry patterns, and common mistakes that continue to trip companies up—and where the real opportunities are to get ahead.

A Sharp Rise in Lawsuits: The Numbers and What They Mean

Let’s start with the numbers. The current legal landscape around digital accessibility is increasingly being shaped in the courtroom. With over 2,000 cases already filed, 2025 is pacing to be the busiest year yet.

What’s driving the surge? Several forces are at play:
- Federal enforcement is light, continuing a years-long trend of limited DOJ action, which shifts the burden to private plaintiffs.
- Legal uncertainty—especially at the federal level—has led to more lawsuits in state courts, where rules are less predictable.
- Strategic filings in state courts, particularly in New York, are on the rise. These courts offer more venues, a larger pool of judges, and sometimes more favorable rulings for plaintiffs. They’re also less likely to show what some call “judicial fatigue”—a phenomenon where federal judges grow weary of seeing repeated, similar claims.
Bottom line? We’re in an era where litigation—not legislation—is leading the way on enforcement.

Industries in the Crosshairs: Who’s Being Targeted Now?

E-commerce is still the top target, making up 69% of all digital accessibility lawsuits filed this year. That’s no surprise—shopping websites are complex, constantly changing, and directly tied to revenue, which makes them high-stakes for both users and businesses.

But some sectors are seeing sharp increases:
- Food Services: up from 11% in 2024 to 18% this year
- Healthcare: rising from 2% to 4%
- Fitness & Wellness: increasing from 2% to 3%
What’s Behind the Rise in These Sectors?

Several things are driving these jumps:
- Many of these sectors rapidly moved more services online in recent years—ordering, booking, telehealth, membership access—but didn’t always include accessibility in those updates.
- The accessibility of core functions—like scheduling a doctor’s appointment or ordering a meal—is especially critical for users with disabilities. When those experiences fall short, they attract scrutiny.
If your business is in one of these spaces, now’s the time to pay close attention.

The Widget Illusion: Overlays Aren’t Cutting It

Accessibility overlays—also known as widgets or toolbars—promise quick fixes. But in reality, they’re creating a false sense of security.

In March 2025 alone, 132 lawsuits were filed against companies using accessibility overlays. That’s not just a record—it’s a wake-up call. For comparison, the highest monthly total in all of 2024 was June, with 121 cases.

The issue is simple: overlays don’t address the real problems buried in your site’s code. They’re cosmetic patches, not functional repairs. Assistive technologies still can’t navigate many sites with overlays, and screen readers often don’t play nice with widget-driven content changes.

If you’re relying on a widget as your accessibility plan, you’re not just behind—you’re at risk.

What To Watch for in the Second Half of 2025

Looking ahead, the rest of 2025 isn’t likely to slow down. Here’s what’s coming:
- More state-level legislation: As federal rules stall, states may push their own accessibility laws. Businesses could face different standards depending on where they operate.
- Litigation as the main enforcement method: Until there’s stronger federal oversight, lawsuits will remain the most effective (and costly) way accessibility is being regulated.
- Overlays under a microscope: Legal and public pressure against widgets will likely continue to mount. Expect more headlines—and more lawsuits.
- Sector-specific crackdowns: Fitness, food, and healthcare industries are expected to see even more scrutiny in Q3 and Q4. If your digital presence in these sectors hasn’t been audited recently, now is the time.
Staying aware of these trends will help your business adjust before becoming part of next quarter’s data.

Staying Ahead, Not Just Staying Afloat

The first half of 2025 has sent a loud, clear message: digital accessibility can’t be an afterthought. The risks are growing, but so are the opportunities to do better—for your customers, your brand, and your legal standing.

This midyear checkpoint is a smart moment to pause and reassess. Are your current efforts truly accessible? Or just designed to pass a basic scan? Are you building for real users with disabilities—or relying on a shortcut that might leave you exposed?

Avoid being part of next quarter’s lawsuit stats. Start making real progress now.

At 216digital, we offer a free ADA briefing to help you figure out exactly where you stand. It’s not a sales pitch—it’s a chance to get clarity, ask questions, and understand your risk. From that foundation, we help you build a plan that fits your site, your team, and your timeline.

Because staying ahead in 2025 isn’t just about compliance. It’s about creating digital experiences that include everyone—and doing it with confidence.

Need a reality check on your accessibility efforts? Schedule your ADA briefing today. Let’s move forward—together.
Greg McNeil

July 28, 2025

Legal Compliance

2025, Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility
How Courts Are Addressing Serial ADA Plaintiffs
In recent years, federal courts—particularly in New York—have seen a wave of ADA Title III lawsuits targeting website accessibility issues. While the Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities, a growing number of cases have been brought by serial ADA plaintiffs—individuals who file dozens of near-identical lawsuits across various businesses, often seeking attorney’s fees rather than pursuing real accessibility improvements.

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

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

The Court’s Response

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

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

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

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

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

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

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

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

4. Why These Rulings Matter

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

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

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys

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

For Businesses

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

For the Legal System

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

6. Looking Ahead

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

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

A Turning Point—and a Call to Act

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

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

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

June 12, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, serial ADA plaintiffs
Web Accessibility for Retailers Under Legal Fire
If you’re running an online retail business, digital accessibility might not be the first thing on your to-do list—but it needs to be. In today’s eCommerce landscape, accessibility for retailers isn’t just a best practice—it’s a legal requirement and a smart business move.

Retail websites are complex, dynamic, and frequently updated, which makes them especially vulnerable to accessibility issues. And as more people rely on online shopping to meet daily needs, the stakes are higher than ever. Lawsuits are on the rise, but more importantly, so is the expectation that your site works for everyone.

Product carousels, filters, multi-step checkout processes, popups, modals, and embedded third-party tools all add complexity and make accessibility more difficult.

Why Web Accessibility for Retailers Matters

Retailers have become one of the biggest targets for digital accessibility lawsuits. In fact, in 2024 alone, 77% of all web accessibility lawsuits in the U.S. targeted online retailers—making the industry the most litigated digital sector. These lawsuits aren’t just targeting Fortune 500 brands; regional and mid-market businesses are facing legal action at an increasing rate.

There are several reasons for this:

Retail Websites are Dynamic And Complex

They’re filled with product carousels, filters, multi-step checkout processes, popups, modals, and embedded third-party tools—all of which can be difficult to make accessible. Without proper structure, markup, and ARIA attributes, these elements can become unusable for people relying on screen readers or keyboard navigation.

eCommerce Sites Are Constantly Updated

Product pages change, promotions rotate, and new features are added regularly. These updates often introduce new accessibility problems—especially when not reviewed with accessibility in mind.

Online Shopping is Essential

It’s no longer a luxury; it’s how millions of people access everyday goods and services. If a website prevents someone from completing a purchase due to an accessibility barrier, it becomes a civil rights issue—legally and ethically.

Demand Letters Are Widespread

Each year, hundreds of thousands of demand letters are sent to businesses for digital accessibility violations. These letters signal that a company is excluding people with disabilities, and the reputational damage can be immediate.

Legal and Technical Web Accessibility for Retailers

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)requires U.S. retailers to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities in all places of public accommodation. In today’s digital world, the courts and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have made it clear: this requirement also applies to websites—especially those that sell goods and services to the public.

Courts and plaintiffs use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the standard for compliance in nearly all accessibility-related lawsuits. The DOJ reaffirmed this approach in 2024, solidifying WCAG as the benchmark for evaluating whether a website is accessible.

The Four Golden Rules of Accessibility: POUR

At the heart of WCAG are four key principles known by the acronym POUR: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. These form the foundation for accessible digital experiences and help ensure your website works for everyone.
- Perceivable – Users must be able to identify and interact with content. This includes providing text alternatives for images, captions for videos, and other sensory accommodations.
- Operable – The site must support navigation with a keyboard, screen reader, or other assistive tools—without relying solely on a mouse.
- Understandable – Information and functionality should be easy to comprehend and behave in expected ways to avoid confusion.
- Robust – Content must be compatible with a wide range of current and future assistive technologies, such as screen readers or voice commands.
And it’s not just your website. These principles should also extend to digital documents, confirmation emails, customer service interactions, and anything else a user might engage with online.

Common Pitfalls on Retail Websites

Retail sites face some of the most complex accessibility challenges. Here are a few issues that often trigger lawsuits:
- Unlabeled or mislabeled form fields that prevent screen reader users from checking out.
- Broken keyboard navigation makes it impossible for users with motor impairments to complete transactions.
- Missing alt text on product images.
- Low color contrast between text and backgrounds.
- Non-dismissable modals or popups that trap users.
- Checkout flows that break when even one component isn’t accessible.
These barriers frequently appear when using templates, third-party plugins, or custom JavaScript that hasn’t been accessibility-tested. They can completely disrupt the buying experience for users who depend on assistive technologies. Web accessibility for retailers requires a consistent and intentional approach to prevent these obstacles from resurfacing.

What Happens If You’re Sued

Most lawsuits begin with a demand letter—often asking for immediate remediation and a financial settlement. If ignored, this can escalate into a federal lawsuit under the ADA or state-level laws like California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which allows for additional penalties.

Settlements may cover remediation costs and legal fees, but the real damage is often reputational—especially when exclusion of disabled users becomes public knowledge.

Even if your business wins the case, legal defense costs are high. And if your site remains non-compliant, you may be targeted again. With web accessibility for retailers, prevention is significantly less costly than a reactive legal defense.

A Proactive Plan for Retailers

Accessibility isn’t a one-time fix. It’s an ongoing strategy. Here’s how to start with accessibility for retailers:

1. Start with an Audit

Use automated tools like Lighthouse or WAVE for a quick scan. But don’t stop there—manual testing is essential for identifying real-world usability barriers.

2. Fix Key Areas First

Prioritize your homepage, product pages, cart, and checkout. Make sure form fields are labeled, keyboard navigation works, and screen readers can read your content.

3. Address Dynamic Elements

Focus on complex components—like popups, modals, filters, and third-party integrations—that often create the biggest challenges. Use semantic markup and ARIA attributes to support assistive tech.

4. Monitor Continuously

Your site changes frequently. Build accessibility checks into your update process so new features don’t break usability, or use a monitoring service like a11y.Radar.

5. Train Your Team

Give your developers, content editors, and marketing teams the knowledge they need to create inclusive content from the start.

6. Consider Outside Help

Accessibility is nuanced. A qualified team can help you get it right—and keep it that way.

Retailers: Don’t Let Accessibility Be an Afterthought

Web accessibility for retailers is no longer optional. It’s central to building a sustainable, inclusive, and legally safe business. In a digital environment where over 30% of the top 500 eCommerce retailers were sued last year, doing nothing is no longer a risk—it’s a liability.

But there’s a real upside, too. Accessibility leads to better experiences, broader audiences, stronger SEO, and a more trusted brand.

Start now. Audit your site. Fix the gaps. Train your team. Partner with experts. Turn accessibility from a compliance headache into a strategic advantage.

Need Help Making Your Retail Site Accessible?

216digital offers full audits, real-world testing, and proactive monitoring to ensure your site meets WCAG standards and stays lawsuit-resistant. Let’s make your eCommerce experience inclusive—and legally safe—from day one.
Greg McNeil

June 11, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ecommerce website, Retail, WCAG, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility

ADA Settlements: Risks, Costs, and Legal Outcomes

When a business is hit with an ADA website accessibility lawsuit, the costs can be more than just financial—they can ripple through development timelines, legal budgets, and brand reputation. And with digital accessibility lawsuits rising yearly, more developers, designers, and product teams are being pulled into legal remediation efforts they didn’t see coming.

But here’s the truth: Not every site needs to achieve 100% WCAG conformance overnight to avoid legal trouble. Smart, risk-aware development teams know how to focus on what matters most—protecting users and reducing legal exposure—without getting bogged down in unnecessary technical perfection.

This article breaks down what ADA settlements typically involve, how to assess legal risk in accessibility work, and when to prioritize critical fixes versus deeper WCAG alignment. Whether you’re retrofitting an existing website or launching something new, understanding the difference between technical and practical compliance can help you make more strategic choices.

What Are ADA Settlements and Why Do They Matter?

An ADA settlement is a legal agreement made outside of court after someone files a complaint or lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, usually regarding a website or app that isn’t accessible to people with disabilities. These agreements typically include:

A financial payment to the plaintiff (often $5,000–$50,000)
A commitment to fix specific accessibility barriers
A timeline for remediation and reporting requirements
A stipulation to train internal teams on accessibility best practices

Most companies settle because litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. Settling often avoids further public exposure or escalating legal fees—but it still requires swift technical action and long-term accountability.

The Real Costs of ADA Settlements

The direct cost of an ADA settlement can vary, but here’s a realistic breakdown for small to midsize organizations:

Settlement payout: $5,000–$30,000 (on average)
Attorney fees (your side): $5,000–$20,000+
Attorney fees (plaintiff’s side, often paid by you): $5,000–$50,000
Remediation costs: $5,000–$50,000 depending on site size and complexity
Training and monitoring costs: Ongoing

Beyond dollars, there’s the cost of dev time, stakeholder panic, potential press coverage, and damage to brand reputation. It’s no wonder more companies are starting to take accessibility seriously before a lawsuit lands on their desk.

The Technical vs. Practical Accessibility Approach

Let’s be clear—full WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is a great long-term goal. But when lawsuits or legal demands hit, the more strategic question becomes: What do we fix first to reduce the most risk, fastest?

Technical Approach

The technical approach focuses on achieving full conformance with WCAG criteria, including:

Semantic structure (landmarks, headings, ARIA roles)
Keyboard access for all functionality
Color contrast and visual design
Error prevention and accessible forms
Text alternatives for images, media, and interactive elements

While comprehensive, this approach can be time-consuming and expensive, especially if your site wasn’t built with accessibility in mind.

Practical Approach

The practical approach focuses on real-world usage and risk mitigation, emphasizing:

High-risk issues likely to appear in a lawsuit (keyboard traps, unlabeled buttons, inaccessible forms)
Fixes that enable blind, low-vision, and mobility-impaired users to navigate, read, and transact
Remediating issues cited by popular screen readers (e.g., NVDA, VoiceOver) and automated tools (e.g., Google Lighthouse, WAVE)

This approach doesn’t replace full compliance—it prioritizes it. For many developers under pressure, this is the smarter path in the short term.

How to Identify High-Risk Accessibility Issues

You don’t need to fix every single WCAG failure at once. Start by focusing on the most common issues that trigger ADA lawsuits:

Issue Type	Description
Keyboard Traps	Can’t tab out of a modal or menu
Missing Button Labels	Screen readers announce “button” with no context
Inaccessible Forms	Fields lack labels, or error messages aren’t announced
Poor Color Contrast	Text is unreadable for people with low vision
Broken Skip Links	Users can’t bypass repetitive navigation
Inconsistent Heading Use	Screen readers can’t navigate efficiently
Missing Alt Text	Images lack descriptions for screen reader users

Each of these can significantly affect usability—and is a frequent target in lawsuits.

Real-World ADA Settlement Outcomes

To understand how this plays out in the wild, here are three simplified examples:

1. Small Retailer Settles for $15K + Fixes

A small e-commerce business received a demand letter after their cart and checkout were found to be inaccessible to keyboard users. They settled for $15,000 and committed to a 90-day remediation plan targeting key transactional flows.

2. Nonprofit Faces Multiple Complaints

A regional nonprofit was hit with three nearly identical lawsuits within six months. They paid over $60,000 total in settlements, then hired an accessibility partner to run audits, update templates, and add ongoing monitoring.

3. Enterprise Brand Chooses Full Compliance

After receiving a lawsuit, a national retailer chose to settle and invest in full WCAG 2.1 AA remediation. The effort took over 9 months but allowed them to build a sustainable accessibility program and avoid future litigation.

How to Strengthen Accessibility and Reduce Legal Risk

Navigating ADA compliance doesn’t require perfection—it requires prioritization. While no one expects your team to fix everything overnight, there are key actions you can take right now to reduce your legal exposure and improve user access:

Get Grounded in WCAG

You don’t need to memorize the entire spec, but your team should understand the fundamentals. Focus on guidelines related to navigation, labeling, and readable text—areas most often cited in ADA settlements.

Run an Audit—Then Act

Automated scans won’t catch everything, but they’re a fast way to surface high-risk gaps like missing alt text or poor contrast. Follow with targeted manual testing or bring in a specialist like 216digital to validate findings and prioritize fixes.

Train the Right Teams

Developers aren’t the only ones who touch your site. Marketing, design, and content teams need basic accessibility training so issues aren’t reintroduced after remediation. This step is often required as part of ADA settlements and signals long-term commitment.

Monitor Continuously

Accessibility is not a “set it and forget it” process. With 216digital’s a11y.Radar, teams can catch regressions early and stay ahead of future lawsuits.

Stay Adaptive

Standards evolve. So should your strategy. Track changes to WCAG and be ready to update design systems, templates, and workflows to maintain long-term compliance.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Wait for a Lawsuit

ADA settlements are a growing risk—but they’re also preventable. Developers and site owners don’t have to boil the ocean to protect themselves. By taking a practical, high-impact approach to accessibility and knowing what issues matter most in legal outcomes, you can avoid major pitfalls while creating better digital experiences for everyone.

The key is to start. Run a scan, fix a few common issues, and build from there. If you’re unsure where to begin, partnering with an accessibility expert like 216digital can guide you through smart remediation strategies that work—before a lawsuit forces your hand.

Need help navigating accessibility risks?

Schedule a free 15-minute ADA briefing with 216digital. We’ll review your site and talk strategy and help you take the first step toward compliance and peace of mind.

Greg McNeil

May 7, 2025

Legal Compliance, Uncategorized

Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, ADA settlements, Web Accessibility

Judge Pushes Back on Serial ADA Plaintiffs
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. Over the years, it’s helped make public spaces—including digital environments—more accessible to everyone. However, the rise of serial ADA plaintiffs—individuals who file dozens or even hundreds of lawsuits—has raised serious concerns among business owners and judges alike. Some of these cases appear less about securing genuine accessibility improvements and more about generating quick financial settlements.

Recently, a federal judge pushed back against this growing trend, signaling that the courts are beginning to question the motives and tactics of some serial ADA plaintiffs. This shift could mark a turning point for businesses frustrated by opportunistic lawsuits. But it doesn’t mean business owners can relax when it comes to ADA compliance—especially online.

In this article, we’ll explore what serial ADA litigation looks like, why businesses risk non-compliance in the first place, how a recent judge’s ruling might change the game, and what proactive steps businesses can take to protect themselves. We’ll also show how partnering with a firm like 216digital can ensure your digital properties are accessible and legally compliant.

What Are Serial ADA Plaintiffs?

A serial ADA plaintiff is someone who files multiple lawsuits under the ADA, often targeting small businesses for alleged accessibility violations. While the ADA is a civil rights law that rightly empowers individuals to hold businesses accountable, these serial filings usually follow a pattern:
- Rapid-fire lawsuits: Dozens of complaints are filed in a short period, often by the same attorney.
- Low-hanging claims: Plaintiffs target minor infractions, such as font contrast issues or missing alt text on websites.
- Settlement-focused: Lawsuits are usually resolved with monetary settlements rather than actual accessibility improvements.
These actions put a financial strain on small and mid-sized businesses, many of which settle to avoid legal fees—even if they were unaware of the issues or were actively working toward compliance.

Why Do Businesses Risk ADA Non-Compliance?

Many business owners want to do the right thing, but digital accessibility often falls through the cracks for a few reasons:
- Lack of awareness: Some companies don’t realize ADA applies to their websites, not just physical locations.
- Complex regulations: Accessibility laws and standards like WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) can be difficult to interpret without expert guidance.
- Limited budgets: Small businesses may not have the resources to hire in-house accessibility experts.
- Inconsistent enforcement: Until recently, the legal system’s tolerance for serial plaintiffs made compliance seem like an expensive guessing game.
Unfortunately, ignorance of the law doesn’t exempt businesses from lawsuits—especially when aggressive litigants are actively seeking out violators.

Judge Cogan Pushes Back: A Turning Point?

In a recent case, federal Judge Cogan of California dismissed multiple web accessibility lawsuits brought by a serial plaintiff, citing a lack of standing and evidence of genuine harm. The court noted that the plaintiff had filed over 50 nearly identical lawsuits against small businesses, often without ever intending to visit or interact with them in any meaningful way.

Judge Cogan questioned whether the plaintiff had suffered real injury or was simply using the ADA as a tool to generate settlements. The ruling emphasized that the purpose of the ADA is to promote meaningful access, not to enable exploitative litigation.

This decision doesn’t make digital accessibility any less important—but it sends a clear message: the courts are starting to scrutinize the intentions behind ADA lawsuits. It’s a warning to serial plaintiffs and an opportunity for businesses to address compliance proactively rather than react to legal threats.

Practical Steps to Avoid Being Targeted

Whether or not the courts are curbing serial litigation, businesses should take real accessibility seriously. Here are steps to protect your brand, reduce legal risk, and create better experiences for all users:

1. Conduct a Professional Accessibility Audit

Start by identifying what accessibility issues exist on your website. Automated tools can catch some problems, but a full audit—especially one that includes manual testing with assistive technologies—is the gold standard.

2. Fix the Most Common Accessibility Errors

Serial plaintiffs often target:
- Missing alt text on images
- Poor color contrast
- Inaccessible navigation menus
- Improper heading structures
- Forms that can’t be completed with a keyboard
Addressing these issues can significantly lower your risk of being sued.

3. Document Your Accessibility Efforts

Even if your site isn’t perfect, showing that you’re making active efforts can make a difference in court. Keep records of audits, remediations, and ongoing updates.

4. Stay Informed on Legal Requirements

Accessibility standards evolve. Staying up to date on WCAG guidelines and DOJ updates to ADA interpretations is essential to maintaining long-term compliance.

5. Implement Ongoing Monitoring

Accessibility isn’t a one-and-done project. Use tools like a11y.Radar, offered by 216digital, to continuously monitor and address new issues before they become problems.

How 216digital Helps You Stay Accessible—and Lawsuit-Proof

At 216digital, we specialize in helping businesses of all sizes navigate the often-confusing world of digital accessibility. We go beyond automated scans and generic checklists to provide comprehensive, real-world accessibility services that keep you compliant and reduce your legal exposure.

Our Services Include
- Phase 1 Risk Mitigation: We identify and fix the most high-risk accessibility issues that could attract serial ADA plaintiffs.
- Phase 2 Real-World Accessibility: We use screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and other assistive technologies to test your site like real users do.
- a11y.Radar Monitoring: Our proprietary service provides ongoing accessibility monitoring and alerts, ensuring your site stays compliant even as content changes.
- Accessibility Consulting and Training: We don’t just fix your website—we empower your team with the knowledge and tools to maintain accessibility long-term.
By working with 216digital, you’ll avoid frivolous lawsuits and create a better online experience for all your users, including those with disabilities.

Final Thoughts

The recent judicial scrutiny of serial ADA plaintiffs is a promising development for business owners who feel trapped between doing the right thing and defending against exploitative lawsuits. But make no mistake: web accessibility still matters—and compliance is still your responsibility.

Rather than playing defense after a lawsuit hits your inbox, you can take a proactive approach that protects your business, supports your customers, and aligns with the original spirit of the ADA.

Let 216digital help you stay compliant, reduce risk, and deliver a more accessible web experience for everyone.

Need help getting started?

Contact 216digital today for a professional web accessibility audit and find out how we can help you safeguard your digital presence from serial ADA plaintiffs.
Greg McNeil

April 10, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
What Designers Get Wrong About Accessible Web Design

When we talk about accessible web design, most people picture developers digging into code to fix issues after the fact. But the real magic—and often the biggest missed opportunity—starts much earlier in the process. It starts with us, the designers.

Design isn’t just about how something looks; it’s about how something works. That includes making sure every user can interact with it, regardless of ability. The challenge is, even seasoned designers can unintentionally leave accessibility gaps in their work. Not out of carelessness, but simply because we weren’t taught to think about it.

Let’s take a look at the most common ways accessible web design gets overlooked in the design phase—and how small changes can make a big difference. These aren’t technical developer fixes. They’re simple, design-first decisions that help create a more inclusive experience for everyone.

Relying on Color Alone

Using color to communicate meaning—like red for errors or green for success—might feel intuitive. But it doesn’t work for everyone. People with color vision deficiencies may not distinguish between red and green. Others might be browsing on devices in bright sunlight or with grayscale settings turned on. Color alone just isn’t enough.

The good news is that accessible web design doesn’t mean ditching color—it means backing it up. A red border becomes more effective with an icon like an exclamation point and a short label that says “Error.” Color still enhances the message, but now it’s readable by everyone, regardless of how they perceive color.

Poor Contrast Between Text and Background

Minimalist palettes are trendy, but light gray text on a white background can create a serious readability issue. For users with low vision, poor contrast turns your carefully crafted content into a frustrating puzzle. It’s not just a style choice—it’s a usability barrier.

Aiming for at least a 4.5:1 contrast ratio ensures your text is readable under a wide range of conditions, including mobile screens and bright environments. Tools like WebAIM’s Contrast Checker make it easy to test combinations. With accessible web design, clarity and style can absolutely coexist.

Hover-Only Interactions

Hover effects can make an interface feel sleek and modern, especially for desktop users. But the reality is that not everyone navigates with a mouse. Touchscreen devices and keyboard users don’t have the option to hover, which means they could miss essential content like tooltips, dropdowns, or action buttons.

Accessible web design calls for interaction that works across devices and input types. If something appears on hover, it should also be accessible via keyboard focus or tap. That way, no one is left guessing—or worse, completely missing part of the site.

Hiding or Removing Focus Styles

One of the more subtle mistakes designers make is removing focus outlines to make interfaces feel cleaner. That glowing blue ring might not match the brand aesthetic, but it’s a crucial indicator for users navigating with a keyboard. It shows where they are on the page.

Instead of removing it, try styling the focus indicator in a way that fits your brand. Make it visible, make it intentional. It’s a small touch, but it honors the needs of users who rely on keyboard navigation. That’s the heart of accessible web design—keeping things usable, not just pretty.

Icon-Only Buttons Without Labels

A trash can, a gear, a hamburger menu—these are all familiar icons to some of us. But they’re not universal. Assuming every user will instantly recognize what an icon means can create confusion, especially for users with cognitive differences or those who are new to digital interfaces.

By adding a short label like “Delete” or “Settings,” or by providing an accessible name using ARIA labels, you give your users clarity. Icons still add visual interest, but now they’re functional for everyone. It’s another way accessible web design respects a broader range of experiences.

Vague Link Text

Link text like “Click here” or “Learn more” might seem harmless, but it quickly becomes a problem for people using screen readers. These users often navigate by skimming a list of links, completely out of the surrounding context. If all the links say the same thing, it’s impossible to know where they go.

Writing meaningful link text—like “Download the 2025 Pricing Guide” or “Explore Our Accessibility Services”—adds clarity for everyone. Plus, it’s great for SEO. In accessible web design, clarity and functionality always go hand-in-hand.

Layouts That Fall Apart When Text Is Resized

Many users with low vision increase their device’s text size to read more comfortably. But if a layout isn’t built to handle that, the entire page can fall apart. Text overlaps, buttons get cut off, and navigation becomes a mess.

Designing with flexibility in mind—using relative units like em, rem, or percentages instead of fixed pixel values—helps keep layouts intact even when zoomed in. Responsive grids, media queries, and scalable components all support accessible web design by making sure your content can adapt.

Skipping Alt Text on Images

Every image on your site has a purpose, whether it’s decorative or informative. But when you leave out alt text—or worse, insert placeholder text like “image123.jpg”—users who rely on screen readers are left without context.

Good alt text is short, specific, and helps users understand the image’s role in the content. For example, “Smiling customer using our mobile app” is useful. If the image is decorative and adds no meaningful content, you can mark it as such so screen readers skip it. Accessible web design makes visuals work for everyone, not just those who can see them.

Hard-Coded Font Sizes

Hardcoding fonts in pixels may seem like a safe bet for maintaining visual control, but it can limit how users adjust their settings. People who need larger text may be blocked by your choices, especially if CSS prevents scaling.

By using relative units, you give users control over their reading experience. Fonts should scale with their preferences, not fight against them. Accessible web design puts usability first, allowing your audience to engage with your content in the way that works best for them.

Overly Complex Navigation

Mega menus, fancy interactions, and unique navigation patterns can look impressive in a mockup—but they can create major barriers for people using keyboards or assistive tech. When navigation becomes a puzzle, users are more likely to get frustrated and leave.

The most effective navigation is simple, consistent, and easy to explore. Use clear labels, test with keyboard-only input, and rely on semantic HTML whenever possible. Accessible web design doesn’t mean boring—it means dependable, predictable, and inclusive.

Where Good Design Meets Real-World Impact

Designers have the power to make the web more inclusive. And the best part? You don’t have to start from scratch. These changes are often small, thoughtful adjustments that make a big difference for users who rely on them.

Accessible web design isn’t a limitation—it’s an invitation to create better work. It asks us to go beyond trends and think deeply about the people who use the things we build. With every project, we can help make the internet a place where more people feel seen, supported, and able to fully participate.

If you’re looking for a partner who understands the balance between beauty, functionality, and accessibility, 216digital is here to help. Together, we can make accessible web design the standard—not the exception.

Greg McNeil

April 8, 2025

How-to Guides, Web Design & Development

Accessible Design, ADA Lawsuit, How-to, responsive design, UX, Web Accessible Design

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

State-Level Accessibility Laws on the Rise

How Small Gaps Turn Into Large Settlements

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

1. Conduct Regular Accessibility Audits

2. Strengthen Digital Accessibility

3. Train Staff Across Departments

4. Create a Clear Response Plan

5. Explore Legal Insurance

Staying Ahead of the Risk

Why Small Businesses Are Being Targeted

The Rise of Web Accessibility Lawsuits

Why Small Businesses Feel It More

Common Accessibility Pitfalls That Trigger Lawsuits

The Danger of Reactive Fixes

A Practical Path Forward

1. Start with a Risk Assessment

2. Be Wary of “Quick Fix” Tools

3. Make Accessibility an Ongoing Habit

4. Document Your Efforts

5. Bring in Expert Support

The Upside: Accessibility as an Advantage

A Message of Reassurance

Support, Not Scrutiny—That’s Where Change Begins

A Sharp Rise in Lawsuits: The Numbers and What They Mean

Industries in the Crosshairs: Who’s Being Targeted Now?

What’s Behind the Rise in These Sectors?

The Widget Illusion: Overlays Aren’t Cutting It

What To Watch for in the Second Half of 2025

Staying Ahead, Not Just Staying Afloat

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

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

The Court’s Response

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

4. Why These Rulings Matter