216digital.
Web Accessibility

ADA Risk Mitigation
Prevent and Respond to ADA Lawsuits

WCAG & Section 508
Conform with Local and International Requirements

a11y.Radar
Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance

Consultation & Training

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

Web Design & Development

Marketing

PPC Management
Google & Social Media Ads

Professional SEO
Increase Organic Search Strength

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

About

Blog

Contact Us

  • Website Accessibility is Critical to Legal Risk Management

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

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

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

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

    Understanding the Legal Landscape of ADA Website Lawsuits

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

    The Cost of Litigation

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

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

    Who Is at Risk?

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

    Strategic Defenses and Remediation

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

    Immediate Steps to Take

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

    The Role of Accessibility Statements

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

    The Business Case Beyond Compliance

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

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

    Protect Your Business from Liability

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

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

    Kayla Laganiere

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Who Is Responsible for Web Accessibility Under the ADA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How Vendors Get Pulled In

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

    Contract Allocation

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

    Third-Party Claims

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

    Evidence and Expectations

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

    When an Access Claim Becomes a Contract Dispute

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

    Two takeaways for agencies and platforms:

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

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

    Responsibility Depends on the Legal Pathway

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

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

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

    Define Responsibility in Contracts

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

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

    Two Contract Traps

    A Promise Without a Standard

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

    A Standard Without Coverage

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

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

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

    What to Clarify in Contracts and SOWs

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

    Standard

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

    Testing and Evidence

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

    Boundaries

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

    Post-Launch Ownership

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

    Ongoing Support

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

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

    Sales Language Can Expand Risk

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

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

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

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

    The Bottom Line: Responsible for Web Accessibility

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

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

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

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

    Greg McNeil

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

  • 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

  • AI, Pro Se Plaintiffs, and the Rise of Web Accessibility Lawsuits

    Digital accessibility is no longer enforced only by regulators or a small group of plaintiff firms. AI tools now make it easy for individuals to prepare and file complaints on their own, and web accessibility lawsuits are following. Cases arrive faster, with less context, and often land on teams that are already stretched.

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

    The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

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

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

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

    How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

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

    Drafting the Complaint

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

    Gathering “Evidence”

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

    Reusing Templates

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

    Filing Online

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

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

    Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

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

    Common signs include:

    Citations That Do Not Exist

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

    Misstated Holdings

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

    Compressed Timelines

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

    Generic Lists of Barriers

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

    Mismatch Between Writing and Presentation

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

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

    AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

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

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

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

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

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

    Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

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

    Most of these cases are not evenly spread across the web. They cluster in certain industries and patterns:

    • E-commerce and transactional experiences
      Close to 70% of cases involve e-commerce sites. Product discovery, cart, and checkout flows draw attention because they are easy to test and directly tied to revenue.
    • Mid-sized organizations
      Around 64% of cases involve companies with annual revenue of less than 25 million dollars. These organizations often have lean teams and limited internal legal support. That can make them appear more likely to settle quickly, which in turn can attract more filings.
    • Sites using widgets and overlays
      More than 20% of recent cases involve sites that installed an accessibility overlay. Complaints often point out that the overlay did not fix underlying issues in templates, components, or key flows.

    For executives and product leaders, the pattern is clear. AI is amplifying enforcement in environments where business-critical experiences are not fully accessible and where teams do not have a strong, documented accessibility program in place. The risk is not only the presence of barriers, but the combination of barriers and a filing landscape that now moves faster and at greater scale.

    Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

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

    Core elements include:

    Anchor on WCAG 2.1 Level AA

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

    Use Both Automated and Manual Testing

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

    Prioritize Templates and Critical Flows

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

    Integrate Accessibility Into Existing Workflows

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

    Document What You Are Doing

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

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

    Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

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

    Helpful steps include:

    Validate the Issues

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

    Review Citations and References

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

    Avoid Rushed Surface Fixes

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

    Feed Lessons Back Into the Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Greg McNeil

    December 16, 2025
    Legal Compliance
    Accessibility, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, ADA Website Compliance, Web Accessibility, web accessibility lawsuits, Website Accessibility

  • 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

    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

    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
1 2 3 … 5
Next Page

Find Out if Your Website is WCAG & ADA Compliant







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

    216digital Logo

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

    216 Digital, Inc. BBB Business Review

    Get in Touch

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

    Support

    Support Desk
    Acceptable Use Policy
    Accessibility Policy
    Privacy Policy

    Web Accessibility

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

    Development & Marketing

    eCommerce Development
    PPC Marketing
    Professional SEO

    About

    About Us
    Contact

    Copyright © 2026 216digital. All Rights Reserved.