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.