FOLLOW US

Key Takeaways

• Website-accessibility litigation is surging, with 432 new digital accessibility lawsuits tracked in August 2026 alone.
• Businesses can face ADA claims when websites prevent blind customers using screen readers from obtaining the same goods and services available to sighted users.
• Installing an accessibility widget is not necessarily a legal shield—134 defendants sued in August reportedly had third-party accessibility tools operating on their websites.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

For millions of Americans, a company’s front door is no longer made of glass, steel or concrete. It is a website.

And increasingly, federal courts are being asked whether that digital entrance is legally accessible to everyone.

Businesses across the country continue to face lawsuits alleging their websites discriminate against blind and visually impaired consumers who rely on screen-reading software. The cases frequently invoke Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination by businesses classified as places of public accommodation.

The litigation is no longer occasional. Reports show that plaintiffs filed 3,117 federal website-accessibility lawsuits in 2025, an increase of approximately 27% from 2024.

The pace remains substantial in 2026. UsableNet's litigation tracker counted 432 new digital accessibility lawsuits in August alone. Of those defendants, 108 had previously faced another digital accessibility lawsuit, while 134 reportedly were using a third-party accessibility widget when they were sued.

For blind consumers, the underlying problem can be very practical. Screen readers convert text and other properly coded webpage elements into speech or braille. But missing alternative text on images, unlabeled buttons, inaccessible drop-down menus, improperly coded forms and webpages requiring mouse navigation can make shopping, booking appointments or completing transactions extremely difficult—or impossible.

The Department of Justice has long taken the position that Title III's protections extend to the goods and services businesses provide through the web. DOJ guidance states that an inaccessible website can prevent a person with a disability from gaining equal access to a public accommodation's services and privileges.

That does not mean every ADA website case is automatically successful.

Federal courts continue to wrestle with how the ADA, enacted in 1990 before modern e-commerce existed, applies to digital businesses. The Ninth Circuit's influential decision in Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC held that the ADA covered Domino's website and mobile app because they connected customers to the goods and services of the company's physical restaurants. The court also rejected Domino's argument that the absence of detailed federal website regulations eliminated its ADA obligations.

Questions become more complicated for businesses operating entirely online. Courts have differed over whether a standalone website itself constitutes a “place of public accommodation,” leaving significant jurisdictional uncertainty. A federal judge in Illinois highlighted that division earlier this year in Henry v. Omoi, Inc., observing that courts have reached conflicting conclusions about Title III's application to websites and that questions surrounding so-called ADA ‘tester’ plaintiffs remain unsettled.

Businesses also should understand an important distinction involving the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, commonly known as WCAG.

For private businesses covered by Title III, DOJ has not adopted a detailed federal regulation requiring universal compliance with a particular WCAG version. Instead, DOJ says businesses retain flexibility in how they provide effective accessibility, although WCAG remains an important technical benchmark.

State and local governments are different. DOJ's Title II regulations expressly use WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard, although in 2026 the department extended applicable compliance dates to April 2027 and April 2028 depending on the public entity.

The stakes can extend beyond simply repairing a website. Private ADA plaintiffs generally pursue injunctive relief requiring accessibility improvements along with recoverable attorney fees. State law can increase exposure substantially. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, for example, provides statutory damages of at least $4,000 in qualifying cases.

The Justice Department also demonstrated in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc. that accessibility settlements themselves can receive scrutiny. In February, DOJ objected to a proposed class settlement, arguing that the accessibility relief provided too little concrete protection for blind consumers while substantial money would go toward attorneys' fees. DOJ even criticized the accessibility of the website created to administer the settlement.

For businesses, the practical lesson is increasingly difficult to ignore. Website accessibility should be treated like any other recurring compliance obligation—not something addressed only after a demand letter arrives.

Automated scanning can identify problems, but genuine accessibility also requires human testing, particularly with screen readers and keyboard-only navigation. And the growing number of defendants sued while using accessibility widgets suggests that purchasing an automated solution does not necessarily purchase immunity from litigation.

About the Author

Samuel López is an independent news reporter for USA Herald and has reported for the publication since 2022. López is a seasoned legal professional with more than two decades of experience analyzing state and federal litigation and working on complex legal matters.

Stay Informed With USA Herald

If this report helped you understand the legal issues behind today's headlines, stay connected with USA Herald. Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive reporting, breaking legal developments, national security analysis and informed coverage of the stories shaping law, business and science.

Follow USA Herald on X at RealUSAHerald.