ADA Lawsuits Archives /Tag

Will ADA 30 Days to Comply Act Reduce Website Lawsuits?
Many business owners feel caught in the middle of the rising wave of digital accessibility lawsuits. They may care about access and want to do the right thing, but they also face unclear expectations, inherited platforms, limited resources, and legal threats that arrive with little warning. One week you are focused on running the business. The next, you are triaging risk, trying to understand what went wrong, and figuring out what you can realistically fix and how fast.

H.R. 7668, also known as the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, is getting attention for that reason. It proposes a notice-and-cure process for certain ADA Title III claims, giving businesses a short window to address reported barriers before a lawsuit can proceed. If you have already faced multiple claims, or you are worried about being targeted next, that window can sound like overdue breathing room. More time to fix. Less pressure to settle.

The catch is what happens during that waiting period, and who pays the cost of the delay. On the web, access often means completing something time-sensitive. A job application, a class registration, a patient portal, a government form, a purchase. This article breaks down what H.R. 7668 would change, why many businesses support it, why advocates see risks, and what actually helps reduce exposure to ADA website lawsuits while still moving accessibility forward.

What H.R. 7668 Would Change

At the center of H.R. 7668 is a notice requirement and a short remediation window before a civil action may be filed under Title III. The proposal is commonly referred to as the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act.

In practical terms, it would require a person to notify a business of an alleged accessibility barrier and give the business 30 days to address it before filing a Title III lawsuit. This could change the timing of ADA Title III website lawsuits by adding a notice step before filing.

Supporters often describe it as a common-sense fix. Many businesses feel they are hit with legal pressure before they even understand what the problem is. They want a chance to respond without being forced into a quick settlement that does not always lead to lasting improvements.

At the same time, digital access is often time-sensitive. If someone cannot apply for a job, complete coursework, access healthcare information, or use a government service when it matters, waiting can mean the opportunity is gone. That tension shows up quickly once the conversation shifts from legal process to real usage.

Why Web Accessibility Issues Repeat

A notice-and-cure approach assumes a business needs a heads-up before it can act. Sometimes that is true. A missing label, a broken link, or an overlooked content update can happen.

But many web accessibility issues repeat because the source is shared.
- A page template has an incorrect heading structure, and that template drives most pages on the site.
- Buttons are built as non-button elements, so keyboard users hit the same wall across menus, filters, and modals.
- Form errors are shown only with color, and the same form pattern is reused in many places.
- A third-party tool is added without testing, then becomes required for checkout, scheduling, or account access.
- New content is published quickly, but the workflow does not include checks for alt text, table structure, or captions.
When issues keep repeating, notice is not the missing piece. A working process is.

This is also where timelines get tricky. If the barrier is tied to a design system or a CMS theme, remediation is not one edit. It can mean code changes, content revision, QA, and sometimes vendor coordination.

Why Businesses Support 30 Days to Comply

Supporters of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act often frame the 30-day window as basic fairness and focus. Many organizations do not have in-house accessibility expertise. They are juggling older platforms, third-party tools, and competing priorities. When a lawsuit lands first, costs often go to legal defense and settlement pressure instead of to remediation. A notice-and-cure requirement, in that view, creates breathing room so dollars can go toward fixing barriers instead of quick payouts.

That argument is also tied to what the lawsuit data shows about repeat targeting. Of the more than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits filed in 2025, 1,427 targeted companies that had already faced an ADA web accessibility claim. In federal court alone, 46 percent of cases involved repeat defendants. Plaintiff firms track litigation history and revisit companies targeted previously for easy wins. When businesses see that cycle, it is easy to understand why some view a portion of filings as driven by litigation incentives rather than by a push for durable accessibility.

It is worth saying clearly that many lawsuits are brought by individuals with disabilities, raising legitimate access barriers. That is part of why this space is so serious. The concern from businesses is that repeat targeting can turn into a pattern where the money goes to settlements instead of fixes, and the underlying site stays vulnerable.

That is the business-side hope behind H.R. 7668. Delay litigation long enough to put resources into remediation first. Bring the focus back to what matters. A site people can use.

Why Advocates Oppose Notice-and-Cure

The civil rights concern does not disappear because repeat filings exist. Notice-and-cure requirements still place the first step on the person who hit the barrier, and that person still experiences the impact in the moment.

If someone cannot complete a time-sensitive task, a 30-day wait can function like a closed door. Even if the site is improved later, the missed opportunity does not come back. That is why disability advocates push back on any model that makes access contingent on a complaint-first process.

This is the tension the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act puts in sharper focus. Businesses want a fair chance to direct resources toward remediation instead of settlements, especially when they fear repeat targeting. People with disabilities need usable access when they arrive, not weeks later.

If policy changes move forward, the measure of success should be practical. Fewer barriers. Faster fixes that hold up over time. Less repeat litigation because the underlying issues were actually addressed.

Pros of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

There are situations where notice-and-cure could lead to better outcomes, especially for teams that are willing to act quickly and work on root causes.
- Reduces the rush to settle, giving teams room to invest in fixes.
- Creates a clearer internal trigger for action, especially in organizations where accessibility keeps getting postponed.
- Encourages faster response when barriers are limited, and the team can move quickly.
- Builds public trust when an organization responds with transparency and follow-through.
A notice window can be useful when it leads to real remediation and better practices afterward. The risk is when it becomes a timing shield instead of a change in behavior.

Cons of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

Even teams acting in good faith can run into problems with a 30-day cure period, especially in digital systems with complexity and volume.

First, it can increase the number of formal notices. If notice becomes the required entry point, more people will use it. That does not automatically mean bad intent. It can simply reflect the new process.

Second, thirty days can be tight for web remediation. Many issues do not live in one place. Navigation, forms, checkout, account access, PDFs, video libraries, and third-party tools can all be part of the claim. Fixing those well takes planning and testing.

Third, rushed fixes can backfire. A patch on one page does not help if the same component appears across the site. When teams fix symptoms instead of shared patterns, problems return on the next release.

And finally, legal exposure does not disappear. A notice step changes the timeline. It does not remove the obligation. If barriers remain, or if the response is incomplete, litigation can still follow.

This is why H.R. 7668 does not eliminate risk. It changes how the first phase may unfold.

How to Reduce ADA Website Lawsuit Risk

Policy debates tend to focus on process. Lawsuit prevention tends to come down to outcomes. The most reliable way to reduce web accessibility lawsuits is to reduce barriers.

That does not require perfection. It requires repeatable habits that hold up through releases and content changes.

A strong foundation usually includes:
- Clear design and development standards aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
- Manual testing paired with automated checks
- A review step that happens before release, not only after complaints
- Content rules that help editors publish accessibly by default
- Review of third-party tools before they become part of critical tasks
- Ownership and documentation so that fixes do not drift between teams
When those pieces exist, accessibility work stops feeling like an emergency cleanup. It becomes maintenance and quality control. That is also when budgets and timelines become more predictable, and repeat issues start to drop.

This is also where web accessibility compliance becomes more predictable. When accessibility is built into design, development, and publishing, it stops being an emergency project and becomes part of quality control.

Whether the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act passes or not, that approach protects users and lowers exposure.

What to Do If You Get an ADA Notice

If a notice-and-cure structure becomes the norm, response quality will matter. Panic leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts create repeat problems.

A practical response plan often looks like this:
1. Acknowledge quickly and document everything.
  Confirm receipt. Log dates. Keep communication in one place.
2. Validate what is being alleged.
  Some claims are accurate. Some are incomplete. Testing helps separate the two. Manual checks matter here.
3. Prioritize critical user journeys first.
  Focus on the paths people need to complete tasks. Navigation, forms, checkout, account access, and core conversions usually come first.
4. Fix at the source when possible.
  If the issue is in a shared component, fix it there. If content is involved, adjust the workflow so the issue does not keep spreading.
5. Track progress with evidence.
  Save tickets, notes, test results, and before-and-after examples. Good records support good faith and reduce confusion later.
A 30-day window can help teams move quickly. It can also expose teams that lack a plan. Either way, being prepared tends to reduce cost, stress, and repeat risk.

Notice-and-Cure and the Future of ADA Website Claims

H.R. 7668 and the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act are often framed as a way to reduce bad-faith lawsuits and give businesses time to fix issues instead of paying settlements. That concern is worth taking seriously, especially when repeated targeting appears in the data.

At the same time, digital access is time-sensitive. Delays can mean missed opportunities and exclusion, even when fixes come later. That is why this proposal draws strong opinions on both sides.

The clearest path forward is still the same. Build accessibility into how websites are designed, developed, and maintained. Reduce barriers at the source. Make fixes that hold up across releases.

That kind of progress is easier to sustain when WCAG 2.1 compliance work is tied directly to the development roadmap, with clear priorities and ownership. If support is needed to build that strategy, 216digital can help you do it on your terms. Schedule a complimentary ADA Strategy Briefing and let’s build a path that supports both business goals and user needs.
Greg McNeil

February 10, 2026

Legal Compliance

ADA 30 Days to Comply Act, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuits, Legal compliance, state accessibility laws, Web Accessibility, Website Accessibility
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
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
ADA Lawsuits: Can You Be Sued Again During Remediation?
When a business gets pulled into ADA lawsuits over its website, the first instinct is usually simple: “Fix it, fast.” Very quickly, though, another question creeps in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

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

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

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

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

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

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

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

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

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

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

Haynes v. Hooters

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

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

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

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

What Courts And Opposing Counsel Actually Look At

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

Two Moments That Matter Most

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

When Remediation Can Strengthen Your Position

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

Patterns Vs. Isolated Mistakes

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

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

Documentation As Protection

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

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

What “Good-Faith Effort” Looks Like In Practice

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

Start With A Full, Expert-Led Audit

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

Prioritize The Issues That Truly Block Users

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

Build A Realistic Remediation Roadmap

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

Communicate With Users—Carefully And Honestly

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

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

Navigating ADA Lawsuits While Improving Your Website

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

Keep Legal Counsel Closely Involved

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

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

Avoid Moves That Look Like Avoidance

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

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

Common Missteps That Invite Repeat Claims

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

Relying Only On “Quick-Fix” Tools

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

Treating Accessibility As An Afterthought

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

Ignoring Content And Third-Party Risk

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

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

Turning Remediation Into A Long-Term Accessibility Program

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

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

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

Moving Forward Without the Constant “What If”

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

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

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

November 19, 2025

Legal Compliance

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

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

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

Two Laws, One Powerful Combination

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

The ADA: A Federal Baseline for Accessibility

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

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

The Unruh Act: California’s Added Layer of Risk

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

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

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

When One Claim Becomes Hundreds: The Class Action Multiplier

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

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

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

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

State-Level Accessibility Laws on the Rise

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

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

How Small Gaps Turn Into Large Settlements

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

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

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

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

1. Conduct Regular Accessibility Audits

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

2. Strengthen Digital Accessibility

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

3. Train Staff Across Departments

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

4. Create a Clear Response Plan

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

5. Explore Legal Insurance

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

Staying Ahead of the Risk

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

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

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

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

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

October 28, 2025

Legal Compliance

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

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

1. The Rise of Serial ADA Plaintiffs and Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

The Court’s Response

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

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

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

3. Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc.

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

Why the Court Dismissed the Case

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

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

4. Why These Rulings Matter

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

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

For Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys

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

For Businesses

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

For the Legal System

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

6. Looking Ahead

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

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

A Turning Point—and a Call to Act

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

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

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

June 12, 2025

Legal Compliance

ADA, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, serial ADA plaintiffs
Court Ruling Confirms ADA Title III Covers Websites

As the boundaries between physical and digital business continue to blur, courts are stepping in to clarify what inclusion really means online. One recent ruling, Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company, brings that conversation into focus. In February 2025, a Minnesota federal judge ruled that websites qualify as places of public accommodation under ADA Title III. This decision supports what many in the digital and legal communities have long believed: accessibility online deserves consistent attention. While it doesn’t resolve every legal question, it strengthens the case for making digital inclusion part of a responsible business approach.

Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company Case

In Frost v. Lion Brand Yarn Company, Clarence and Tammy Frost—both legally blind—alleged that the company’s website was inaccessible to screen reader users. They argued this violated ADA Title III, which prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation.

Lion Brand Yarn asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that its website wasn’t a physical place and therefore didn’t fall under the scope of the ADA.

Court Decision and ADA Title III Interpretation

On February 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez denied the motion to dismiss. Her decision stated that a website can, in fact, be considered a place of public accommodation under ADA Title III. She emphasized the law’s broad intent and noted that excluding digital spaces would limit access in today’s online world.

Legal Reasoning Behind ADA Title III Decision

Judge Menendez’s ruling follows a growing trend in how courts interpret the ADA. Even though the law was written before websites existed, many judges now recognize that its goals—ensuring equal access—apply in digital spaces, too.

The court explained that ignoring websites under ADA Title III would go against the law’s purpose. If businesses offer goods and services online, people with disabilities must have equal access to those experiences.

Broader Implications of ADA Title III in Digital Accessibility

This case contributes to the growing conversation about whether ADA Title III covers digital platforms.Some courts have said yes, others no—but momentum is building toward broader interpretation. More judges, and the Department of Justice, are saying that websites count.

By viewing digital platforms as essential for communication and commerce, this ruling helps make the case that online inclusion is part of federal disability rights.

The Legal Shift Toward Website Accessibility Under ADA Title III

The Minnesota decision supports what many businesses and advocates have been saying: websites need to be accessible. While there’s still legal gray area, the trend is clear—courts are treating digital inaccessibility more seriously.

Congress didn’t limit ADA Title III to physical places, and courts are using that flexibility to apply it to today’s technology. With websites acting as digital storefronts, accessibility is increasingly expected as a baseline.

Agencies like the Department of Justice also support this view. As websites become central to how businesses operate, they must be designed with accessibility in mind.

Actionable Steps for Compliance with ADA Title III

If your business operates online, now is the time to prioritize accessibility. Here are some practical, proven steps to move in the right direction:

Conduct Accessibility Audits

Use a mix of automated tools and manual checks to find and fix barriers that prevent access.

Implement WCAG Guidelines

Follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA to ensure your content is usable for people with disabilities.

Train Development Teams

Make sure developers and designers understand accessibility best practices from the start.

Engage Users with Disabilities

Include people with disabilities in your testing process—they offer insights that no automated tool can.

Maintain Ongoing Compliance

Use tools like a11y.Radar to monitor your site regularly and stay on top of new issues. Accessibility isn’t a one-time fix—it’s ongoing.

Erkan v. David A. Hidalgo, MD, P.C. provides one example of proactive compliance. There, a judge acknowledged that steps taken to address accessibility concerns helped mitigate legal risk. It’s a good reminder that prevention is always better than response.

Implications of ADA Title III for Businesses

This ruling matters most for businesses that sell or provide services online. Failing to address accessibility could lead to legal challenges, negative press, and missed opportunities to connect with customers.

On the flip side, investing in accessibility shows you value all your users. It can improve user experience, increase brand trust, and even open up new markets.

The Time to Act is Now

The Minnesota ruling strengthens the growing understanding that websites are part of the ADA Title III conversation. While not every legal question is settled, businesses have more reason than ever to take accessibility seriously.

If your website serves the public, this case is a signal to act. Not because you’re forced to—but because it’s the right thing to do.

To learn more about how to proactively address ADA conformance, schedule an ADA briefing with 216digital today. Our team of accessibility experts is ready to guide your business through every step of the process, helping you stay ahead of evolving legal standards while building a more inclusive web for everyone.

Greg McNeil

May 23, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuits, ADA Title III, Title III, Website Accessibility

ADA Settlements: Risks, Costs, and Legal Outcomes

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

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

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

What Are ADA Settlements and Why Do They Matter?

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

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

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

The Real Costs of ADA Settlements

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

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

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

The Technical vs. Practical Accessibility Approach

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

Technical Approach

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

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

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

Practical Approach

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

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

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

How to Identify High-Risk Accessibility Issues

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

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

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

Real-World ADA Settlement Outcomes

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

1. Small Retailer Settles for $15K + Fixes

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

2. Nonprofit Faces Multiple Complaints

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

3. Enterprise Brand Chooses Full Compliance

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

How to Strengthen Accessibility and Reduce Legal Risk

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

Get Grounded in WCAG

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

Run an Audit—Then Act

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

Train the Right Teams

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

Monitor Continuously

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

Stay Adaptive

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

Final Thoughts: Don’t Wait for a Lawsuit

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

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

Need help navigating accessibility risks?

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

Greg McNeil

May 7, 2025

Legal Compliance, Uncategorized

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

Can Fixing Accessibility Issues Void an ADA Lawsuit?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a law designed to protect people with disabilities. It requires both physical and digital spaces to be accessible to everyone. When we talk about a website, accessibility issues might include problems like small text, missing captions for videos, or code that screen readers can’t understand. Fixing these barriers can make a big difference for people with vision, hearing, or other disabilities.

But what happens when you’re sued for accessibility and then fix the barriers? Can you end the lawsuit just by correcting the problem? In some cases, if a legal dispute is settled or the main issue is resolved, the courts call it “moot.” A moot case is one where the concern is gone, and there’s nothing left to argue about. So, does fixing your accessibility issues automatically make the lawsuit moot and make the case go away?

What Does “Moot” Mean in ADA Lawsuits?

When a case is “moot,” it means the issue at the center of the dispute is fully resolved. There’s nothing more for the court to settle. Courts don’t spend time on moot cases because their job is to address real, ongoing problems. If a problem is completely gone, there’s no need to step in.

How This Applies to ADA Lawsuits

Many ADA lawsuits, particularly those concerning website accessibility issues, don’t always focus on money. Instead, they often request that a business fix the problem. If the business does correct its accessibility barriers, it can argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed because there’s truly nothing left to contest.

However, making a handful of fixes doesn’t mean the court will deem it moot. Sometimes, the court still proceeds with litigation if it remains uncertain the corrections will hold in the long term or if the modifications are incomplete. The key point is that all accessibility issues must be resolved in a lasting way, so people with disabilities won’t ever encounter the same barriers again.

What Factors Decide If a Case Is Moot?

When You Fix the Problem Matters

It’s much better to address accessibility issues before anyone files a lawsuit. If the problems no longer exist prior to litigation, there’s often no case in the first place. But if you wait until after someone sues, judges are more likely to scrutinize your fixes. They might allow the case to continue if they suspect the changes were rushed or not comprehensive.

Proof That the Fix Is Permanent

Courts want reassurance that the barriers won’t return. If your website is only partially fixed or if the fixes might break with the next update, the judge may not see the case as moot. To prove your commitment, demonstrate that your solutions are solid, tested, and built to last.

Ongoing Accessibility Efforts Matter

Judges look for signs you plan to remain accessible in the long run. A budget for accessibility, routine audits, and proper training show the court you’re taking this seriously. If you can prove you’re actively preventing new barriers, your argument to dismiss the lawsuit will be stronger.

Does Fixing Accessibility Issues Make the Lawsuit Go Away?

Short Answer: Not Always

It may seem logical that correcting your site’s accessibility issues would end the legal fight, but lawsuits can persist even after changes are made. Here’s why:
- Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Plaintiffs often request attorney fees under federal law, which allows the prevailing party to recover these costs. Even if you fix the problem, the plaintiff might claim they deserve compensation for time and resources spent filing the lawsuit.
- Compliance Verification: The court or plaintiff may want proof that your website remains compliant long term. This can involve audits, monitoring, or reporting requirements.
- Bad Faith Litigation: Certain “serial litigants” file multiple lawsuits seeking quick settlements. Even after you fix the issues, these litigants could still pursue a settlement or legal fees.
When Could the Case Be Dismissed?

A court may dismiss a case if it’s truly moot, which typically requires showing a solid commitment to ongoing compliance. For instance, if you’ve:
- Hired an accessibility consultant to thoroughly audit your site.
- Corrected all the reported issues.
- Adopted a formal accessibility policy.
- Implemented regular testing and maintenance to keep your site accessible.
If you can persuade the court there’s virtually no chance the same accessibility barriers will return, the lawsuit might indeed be dismissed as moot. However, the burden is usually on you to prove you’ve made genuine, lasting efforts.

Why Proving Mootness Can Be Hard

Unlike a physical location, a website is constantly updated. New products, images, or code can introduce fresh accessibility hurdles if you’re not careful. Because websites are so fluid, it’s tough to prove that issues won’t resurface. Courts remain cautious about calling a case moot if they believe the next update could create the same barriers again.

The Business Bears the Burden of Proof

It’s up to the business to convince the court that the barriers won’t come back. If the court isn’t entirely convinced, the lawsuit can stay active. This creates challenges for many companies because ongoing accessibility requires constant attention. Even minor overlooked glitches can affect people with disabilities—and put you back on the legal radar.

Real Lawsuits: When Mootness Worked (and When It Didn’t)

Diaz v. Kroger

In Diaz v. Kroger, the lawsuit claimed Kroger’s website was inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. Kroger responded by upgrading the site to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), widely regarded as the leading standard for web accessibility. They also established clear policies to maintain compliance. Since Kroger provided convincing evidence that the issues were fixed and unlikely to return, the court dismissed the case as moot.

Haynes v. Hooters

In contrast, Haynes v. Hooters went differently. Hooters made some modifications to address accessibility but couldn’t show that the site was fully accessible. They also lacked a clear plan to keep it accessible going forward. Because the fixes were incomplete and the long-term strategy was unclear, the case was not found moot. Hooters remained in legal hot water, even after implementing certain improvements.

What Businesses Should Do to Avoid Lawsuits

Stay Ahead of the Game with Accessibility Audits

One of the most effective ways to avoid ADA lawsuits is by preventing barriers before they arise. Regular audits—for both your website and physical location—can help you catch accessibility issues early. These checks might cover screen reader compatibility, video captions, and easy navigation for keyboard-only users. Identifying these issues early lets you fix them before a lawsuit ever appears.

Develop an Accessibility Plan

A strong accessibility plan signals to courts (and customers) that you take the ADA seriously. This plan should include:
- Clear Accessibility Policies: Document your commitment to making your website and business accessible.
- A Real Budget for Improvements: Allocate funds for accessibility updates and necessary technology.
- Scheduled Audits and Training: Conduct regular reviews and train your team to maintain accessibility every day.
Document Everything

Keep thorough records of what you’ve corrected, when you did it, and how you’re preventing new accessibility issues. Detailed documentation can be invaluable in court if you need to prove your compliance efforts. It also streamlines your updates and helps you catch minor errors before they become major problems.

Team Up with 216digital to Stay ADA-Compliant

Catching accessibility barriers early is the best way to avoid costly legal disputes and ensure all users feel welcome on your site. It also helps you steer clear of lawsuits that might not vanish just because you made a few changes.

At 216digital, we understand how overwhelming it can be to keep pace with ADA regulations and website maintenance. That’s why we specialize in accessibility audits, risk mitigation, and compliance solutions. We believe in taking proactive steps so you’re not left scrambling after a lawsuit arrives.

Instead of waiting to see if your site might face an ADA lawsuit, schedule a free ADA briefing today to evaluate your site’s compliance. With the right measures, you can demonstrate to your customers—and the courts—that you’re genuinely committed to removing accessibility barriers and keeping your online presence open to all.

Catching accessibility issues early is the best way to stay out of legal trouble and create a welcoming experience for all your visitors. It also helps you avoid the stress and cost of a lawsuit that might not go away just because you made a few changes.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have specific legal questions about your situation, consult with an attorney who specializes in ADA and accessibility matters.
Greg McNeil

February 21, 2025

Legal Compliance

Accessibility, ADA Compliance, ADA Lawsuit, ADA Lawsuits, Moot, Website Accessibility

What H.R. 7668 Would Change

Why Web Accessibility Issues Repeat

Why Businesses Support 30 Days to Comply

Why Advocates Oppose Notice-and-Cure

Pros of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

Cons of the ADA 30 Days to Comply Act

How to Reduce ADA Website Lawsuit Risk

What to Do If You Get an ADA Notice

Notice-and-Cure and the Future of ADA Website Claims

Who Is Responsible for Web Accessibility Under the ADA?

How Vendors Get Pulled In

When an Access Claim Becomes a Contract Dispute

Responsibility Depends on the Legal Pathway

Define Responsibility in Contracts

Two Contract Traps

What to Clarify in Contracts and SOWs

Sales Language Can Expand Risk

The Bottom Line: Responsible for Web Accessibility

What the Fashion Nova Settlement Signals for Digital Accessibility

How the Case Turned Into a Digital Accessibility Class Action

Why the ADA Applies to Websites in Practice

Why WCAG Became the Working Standard for Digital Accessibility

The Hidden Costs That Show Up Before a Lawsuit

Lessons You Can Apply Before Risk Turns Into Disruption

Start With the Flows That Keep Your Business Running

Fix the Foundation Before Polishing the Edges

Treat Content as a First-Class Accessibility Surface

Audit on a Schedule and After Major Changes

Watch Your Third-Party Tools

Building an Approach That Stays Stable

When “Later” Becomes Harder to Ignore

The New Wave of Pro Se Plaintiffs Using AI

How AI-Generated ADA Complaints Are Built

Drafting the Complaint

Gathering “Evidence”

Reusing Templates

Filing Online

Red Flags That Suggest AI Played a Major Role

AI as Assistive Technology Does Not Change Legal Duties

Where Web Accessibility Lawsuits Are Landing

Building an Accessibility Program That Holds Up

Responding When an AI-Generated Complaint Arrives

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

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

Quick Refresher: ADA And Digital Spaces

The Practical Standard: WCAG As The Benchmark

Why Websites Are Vulnerable To Repeated Claims

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

There’s No Automatic “Grace Period”

Multiple Plaintiffs, Overlapping Issues

Different Types Of Pressure At Once

Haynes v. Hooters

What Courts And Opposing Counsel Actually Look At

Two Moments That Matter Most

When Remediation Can Strengthen Your Position

Patterns Vs. Isolated Mistakes

Documentation As Protection

What “Good-Faith Effort” Looks Like In Practice

Start With A Full, Expert-Led Audit

Prioritize The Issues That Truly Block Users

Build A Realistic Remediation Roadmap

Communicate With Users—Carefully And Honestly

Navigating ADA Lawsuits While Improving Your Website

Keep Legal Counsel Closely Involved

Handling Communications With Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Avoid Moves That Look Like Avoidance

Common Missteps That Invite Repeat Claims

Relying Only On “Quick-Fix” Tools

Treating Accessibility As An Afterthought

Ignoring Content And Third-Party Risk

Turning Remediation Into A Long-Term Accessibility Program

Moving Forward Without the Constant “What If”

Two Laws, One Powerful Combination

The ADA: A Federal Baseline for Accessibility

The Unruh Act: California’s Added Layer of Risk

When One Claim Becomes Hundreds: The Class Action Multiplier

State-Level Accessibility Laws on the Rise

How Small Gaps Turn Into Large Settlements

Practical Steps to Reduce Risk

1. Conduct Regular Accessibility Audits