Computer - Judge
Laptop with gavel.

By: John W. Egan

Seyfarth Synopsis: A New York federal court recently dismissed a website accessibility action as “moot,” based on the defendant’s submitted evidence that it took “commercially reasonable” steps to make its website accessible and plaintiff’s failure to submit any evidence to the contrary.   

Some clients ask why they should work towards making their websites accessible when they will likely be sued anyway, given the huge number of website accessibility lawsuits filed each year.  After all, in 2025, plaintiffs filed over 3,000 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court.

In addition to ensuring that customers with disabilities can access the goods and services of the business, meaningful efforts to make a website accessible can also be helpful in defending lawsuits and deterring plaintiffs.  Case in point:  Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted a motion to dismiss after finding that the defendant’s actions to make the website accessible rendered the alleged digital barriers “moot.”  

Like so many others, the complaint alleged that the blind plaintiff could not complete a purchase of a specific product (sunglasses) within a specific timeframe due to numerous design and coding issues that did not comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).  Issues included missing “alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events performed solely with a mouse, . . . [and] a host of broken links)”.

In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant submitted a declaration from its Director of E-Commerce describing the “commercially reasonable” steps it had taken to make its website conform to the WCAG, and its actions after receiving the lawsuit to eliminate any accessibility barriers.

The Director of E-Commerce declared that the company had worked with a national digital accessibility consultant since 2023, that the website received one of the “highest scores” among that consultant’s e-commerce clients, and that defendant continued to work with that consultant to test the website and “enhance its accessibility.”  The declaration further stated that the company worked with the consultant to investigate the alleged barriers, and no barriers were found that prevented individuals from purchasing the sunglasses, apart from a “low-severity issue” that defendant had since remediated.  The declaration described the steps defendant planned to take to ensure “ongoing compliance,” and attached a copy of the consultant’s report that illustrated the consultant’s audit process and findings.

The Court held that, with this evidentiary showing, defendant satisfied the “voluntary cessation” doctrine for mootness – that there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will reoccur, and interim relief or events “completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”

Instead of submitting evidence to rebut the E-Commerce Director’s declaration, plaintiff argued (incorrectly) that defendant could not introduce evidence outside the pleadings, and that defendant could not meet the significant burden of showing that the case was moot based on “voluntary cessation” (i.e., that the wrongful conduct would not likely recur).  The Court’s dismissal order focused on the lack of any supporting declaration or exhibits by plaintiff, and pointed out that in a “factual” challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction – such as defendant’s mootness motion – a defendant may introduce evidence outside the Complaint.

The Court dismissed the case “without prejudice,” meaning that the plaintiff can file an amended Complaint in the same case.  The plaintiff can also file a new action in state court alleging New York state and city civil rights claims.   

While the case may be far from over, the Jones decision is a favorable one for businesses that have undertaken documented steps to make their websites accessible.  The decision suggests that businesses that invest in website accessibility are better positioned to defend against cut‑and‑paste accessibility lawsuits and to signal to the plaintiffs’ bar that they are not easy targets.  

Edited by: Minh N. Vu and Kristina M. Launey

By:  Kristina M. Launey & Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs filed 3,117 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court in 2025 – a 27% increase from 2024. 

Website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court bounced back from their two-year decline in 2025, with a significant increase from 2024 filings.  The total number of lawsuits filed in federal court alleging that plaintiffs with a disability could not use websites because they were not designed to be accessible and/or work with assistive technologies in 2025 was 3,117.  This number is 665 more than 2024’s total of 2,452, representing a 27% increase – coincidentally almost exactly making up the 14% and 13% decrease in filings we saw in 2023 and 2024, respectively. 

[Graph: ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits in Federal Court 2017-2025: 2017: 814; 2018: 2,258 (177% increase from 2017); 2019: 2,256 (.01% decrease from 2018), 2020: 2,523 (14% increase from 2019); 2021: 2,895 (12% increase from 2020); 2022: 3,255 (12% increase from 2021); 2023: 2,794 (14% decrease from 2022); 2024: 2,452 (13% decrease from 2023); 2025: 3,117 (27% increase from 2024). *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

Website accessibility lawsuits accounted for 36% of the total number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2025 (3,117 out of 8,667 cases).  That’s 8% more than in 2024 when website accessibility lawsuits made up 28% of all the ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court (2,452 out of 8,800 cases).  Also, as shown in the graph below, the number of filings per month ranged from a low of 219 cases in June to a high of 319 cases in July. 

[Graph: Total Number of Website Accessibility Lawsuits Filed by Month (Jan. 2025 – Dec. 2025): Jan. 2025 (247), Feb. 2025 (268), Mar. 2025 (300), Apr. 2025 (243), May 2025 (297), Jun. 2025 (219), Jul. 2025 (319), Aug. 2025 (250), Sep. 2025 (236), Oct. 2025 (281), Nov. 2025 (231), Dec. 2025 (226). *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

New York federal courts continued to be the busiest with 1,021 lawsuits.  Florida was a close second with 961 lawsuits — almost double the 470 filings in 2024.  Illinois passed Minnesota and Pennsylvania to claim the third spot with 585 lawsuits.  Minnesota and Pennsylvania slid into the fourth and fifth spots with 162 and 137 lawsuits respectively. Remarkably, California’s federal courts only had four new website accessibility lawsuits last year.

[Graph: Federal ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits per State, Jan. 2025 – Dec. 2025: NY 1,021, FL 961, IL 585, MN 162, PA 137, MO 86, MA 57, WI 47, IN 34, NJ 22, CA 4, DC 1. *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

[Graph: New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California Federal ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits 2017-2025: NY: 2017 (335), 2018 (1,564), 2019 (1,358), 2020 (1,694), 2021 (2,074), 2022 (2,560), 2023 (2,152), 2024 (1,564), 2025 (1021); FL: 2017 (325), 2018 (576), 2019 (529), 2020 (302), 2021 (185), 2022 (310), 2023 (385), 2024 (470), 2025 (961); PA: 2017 (58), 2018 (42), 2019 (92), 2020 (173), 2021 (167), 2022 (216), 2023 (143), 2024 (103), 2025 (137); CA: 2017 (9), 2018 (10), 2019 (121), 2020 (223), 2021 (360), 2022 (126), 2023 (30), 2024 (3), 2025 (4).]

If you’re wondering why California has so few website accessibility cases relative to New York, it is likely because judges in New York federal courts have been more favorable toward plaintiffs when the defendant is an online-only business while in California, both federal and state courts of appeals have reached the conclusion that online only businesses are not covered by the ADA, making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs to file viable lawsuits against online-only businesses for accessibility violations.  However, we still see a significant number of demand letters and lawsuits filed in state courts, which are not included in our federal lawsuit numbers, especially against businesses with physical locations.

Although the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which NY sits, has yet to decide whether online-only businesses are covered by the ADA, most district court judges in New York – with a few exceptions — to have addressed the issue have concluded that they are.  That said, New York federal courts have been more demanding lately with regard to the allegations necessary to establish a plaintiff’s standing – which has led many plaintiffs to file in New York and New Jersey state courts instead of federal court. 

Why did the number of website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the country last year bounce back? Based on our practice, we have seen new plaintiff’s attorneys in the website accessibility space which likely drive the higher numbers.  These cases are also very easy for plaintiffs to file because they don’t even need to leave their homes to have an encounter with an alleged barrier to access.

One thing is likely certain:  Unless the present administration and/or Congress makes significant changes to the ADA Title III statutory, regulatory, or enforcement schemes – a highly unlikely scenario – website accessibility lawsuits will continue to be filed.

***

About our methodology:  Our 2025 numbers are based on searches using keywords of data from the Courthouse News Services.  Thus, it is possible that there are some website accessibility cases that were not captured in the searches if their descriptions did not include the keywords.  We then review the thousands of entries manually to remove lawsuits that may be about websites but are not about a website’s accessibility to a user with a disability. 

2026
2026 Crystal ball

Seyfarth Synopsis:  ADA Title III controversies continue unabated but there will be no new regulations. 

By: Minh N. Vu

We know we are cheating a little by doing 2026 predictions two months into the year, but better late than never, right?

On the litigation front, it’s business as usual.  Plaintiffs continue to send demand letters and file lawsuits about inaccessible websites and physical access barriers in federal and state court.  The hot spots continue to be California, New York, and Florida, though we’ve seen more activity in other states than previously.  In New York, we are seeing more cases being filed in state court, most likely because federal judges are scrutinizing the standing of serial plaintiffs and applying a rigorous standard.  In California, federal courts weary of ADA Title III lawsuits continue to decline supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims that are necessary for plaintiffs to recover damages. This too has caused a shift to state court for some plaintiffs seeking statutory or other damages under the Unruh Act.  The number of overall cases filed in federal court for January 2026 are in line with 2025 numbers so we do not expect a significant change in volume.

On the regulatory front, we predict no new regulations under Title III of the ADA, as Executive Order 14192 signed January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires federal agencies to repeal 10 existing regulations for every one new regulation, and specifies that “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, being finalized this year, shall be significantly less than zero.”  In fact, in September 2025, the DOJ said it was revisiting the regulations issued in April 2024 under Title II of the ADA for web content of state and local governments to see “if they could be made less costly.”  These regulations required such web content on websites and mobile apps to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.1 AA.  The first compliance deadline is just around the corner (April 24, 2026) for cities with a population above 50,000.  Cities with a population below 50,000 have until April 26, 2027 to comply.

Despite the regulatory slowdown, the DOJ continued to engage in some enforcement actions, and we believe that will continue in 2026, albeit not at the level we’d see during a Democratic administration.  In September 11, 2025, DOJ sued a ride share company for allegedly discriminating against people with disabilities who use service animals and wheelchairs, and there is a Motion to Dismiss pending.  And more recently, DOJ announced that it was investigating SeaWorld for not letting people use their rollators (i.e. walkers with seats) in the park.  The announcement of an investigation departed from the DOJ’s standard practice of keeping investigations confidential until it files an enforcement lawsuit or reaches a resolution.

DOJ also took the unusual step of objecting to a proposed class settlement of a website accessibility lawsuit because the injunctive relief would not meaningfully increase accessibility, and the monetary payments disproportionately favor the attorneys over the members of the class.  The DOJ even went so far as to audit the website of the settlement administrator and claims that this website is not fully accessible to people with disabilities.  The DOJ’s scrutiny of class counsel’s fee award may make the plaintiffs’ bar think twice about pursuing class-wide settlements.

In sum, while DOJ’s regulatory and enforcement approach has changed, private litigants continue to press their cases, including more pro se litigants filing lawsuits filing lawsuits with the help of AI.

allessuper_1979-home-office-5091293_1920
Image of a stuffed dog plushie in front of a laptop

By: Pamela C. Huynh and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth synopsis:  Another federal judge in NY scrutinizes a serial plaintiff’s standing to sue and sua sponte orders discovery and an evidentiary hearing into jurisdictional issues.

The copy‑and‑paste nature of a serial plaintiff’s boilerplate complaint in a website accessibility lawsuit has given another judge in the Southern District of New York reason to “pause.”  Following several federal New York decisions scrutinizing standing in ADA website accessibility suits, District Judge Jeanette A. Vargas took the unusual step of ordering jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing into whether the plaintiff in Fernandez v. Cuddle Clones, LLC actually suffered an injury‑in‑fact.  The discovery and hearing will focus on whether the serial plaintiff genuinely intended to complete an alleged online purchase from the purveyor of custom pet plushies.  Such a finding is necessary for the plaintiff to have standing to pursue the lawsuit.

Judge Vargas ordered the discovery and hearing sua sponte (i.e. on her own accord) based on several red flags.

First, although the plaintiff’s filing of more than 57 ADA website lawsuits was not itself disqualifying, the content and timing of those filings raised concerns.  Within a four‑day period, she allegedly attempted to buy a slew of items, ranging from vitamins to a solar generator, which ultimately resulted in 22 lawsuits.  Second, the plaintiff’s complaints in each of these lawsuits were nearly identical in structure and substance, mirroring the hundreds of similar ADA website complaints her counsel filed on behalf of various plaintiffs.  Third, the complaint’s allegation that plaintiff wanted to buy a “pet toy” made no sense because the retailer only sells high-priced custom plush replicas of pets for their owners.

Taken together, these circumstances led Judge Vargas to question the plaintiff’s professed intent to make a purchase.  She therefore ordered expedited jurisdictional discovery to be completed within less than a month, followed by an evidentiary hearing to determine whether standing exists.

This case adds to the growing body of decisions in which federal courts in New York are intensifying their scrutiny of standing in ADA website cases.  The increased rigor has also contributed to a shift of filings into state court, where plaintiffs face less demanding standing requirements.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

Screenshot 2026-02-18 085732
Person throwing wrench at computer.

By: Ashley S. Jenkins, Kristina M. Launey, John W. Egan

Seyfarth synopsis: The DOJ filed a Statement of Interest opposing the settlement of a website accessibility class action in California federal court, arguing it does not ensure increased access and disproportionately compensates plaintiffs’ attorneys over the class members with vision disabilities.  The DOJ also asserted that Class Counsel’s settlement website is not accessible to the blind.

As we predicted, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has been less active in enforcing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”) with regard to public accommodations websites during this administration.  Thus, imagine our surprise when DOJ announced on February 2, 2026, that it had filed a Statement of Interest (SOL) opposing a proposed settlement of a federal class action lawsuit concerning the accessibility of a retailer’s website.  

What is the Lawsuit About?

The lawsuit, Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., USDC ND Cal. Case No. 4:20-cv-01434, alleged that Fashion Nova operates an online retail website that is not accessible to blind individuals, in violation of Title III and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”).  The plaintiff sought injunctive relief requiring modifications to Fashion Nova’s website on behalf of a nationwide class, and state statutory damages on behalf of a California subclass consisting of all legally blind individuals who attempted to access Fashion Nova’s website using screen reading software during the applicable limitations period through the final judgment in the action.   

In 2022, the district court for the Northern District of CA certified a nationwide class, and a California subclass. 

Proposed Settlement Terms

After the court certified the classes, the parties reached agreement on a proposed class action settlement consisting of the following key terms:

  • Injunctive Relief:  Fashion Nova agreed to modify its website “as needed” to achieve substantial conformance with WCAG [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines] 2.1.  It also promised to adopt and implement a website accessibility policy that comports with the remedial measures within 180 days after the agreement becomes effective.
  • Monetary Relief:  Fashion Nova agreed to pay approximately $2.43 million to California class members who submit valid claims, with a limitation of $4,000 per household for each member of the class that does not opt-out.  Any amount remaining would be paid to a specified blind advocacy organization or another organization agreed by the parties and approved by the Court.
  • Attorneys’ Fees: Fashion Nova agreed to pay $2.52 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs’ counsel.
  • Optional Measures:  Under the proposed agreement, Class Counsel may, but is not required to, perform an accessibility audit of Defendant’s website at its own cost and expense.    

DOJ’s Position

The DOJ argues in its SOL that the Court should reject the proposed settlement because the injunctive relief would not meaningfully increase accessibility, and the monetary payments disproportionately favors the attorneys over the members of the class.

DOJ specifically cited to the following deficiencies in the proposed agreement:

  • The absence of concrete steps to ensure that the website will become fully accessible for consumers; 
  • The absence of a mechanism for monitoring or enforcement because Class Counsel is not required to do any monitoring; and
  • Disproportionately high attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel, considering the limited value of the agreement to class members.

DOJ also stated “the United States does not oppose relief that would actually make a website available to individuals who are blind or have low vision; rather, we oppose using a civil claim principally to enrich class counsel on the backs of persons with disabilities instead of vindicating the rights of persons with disabilities.”  (emphasis added)

The DOJ also noted incredulously that the website of the settlement administrator that blind individuals must use to submit claims is not accessible to screen reader users. The agency even engaged a digital accessibility consultant who inspected the administrator website and identified various accessibility barriers.

DOJ also called out the volume of similar lawsuits filed by plaintiff and Class Counsel alleging inaccessible websites.  It noted and identified the 20 cases that the plaintiff had filed in 2020 and 2021 “alleging the same four accessibility barriers.”  It stated that Class Counsel had “filed the same exact lawsuit, on behalf of repeat plaintiffs” between 2019 and 2023 in over 500 cases, “with the vast majority ending in a non-disclosed individual settlement.”

And in a notable footnote, the DOJ stated that “[t]he United States does not endorse WCAG as the appropriate or necessary standard for the provision of auxiliary aids and services under Title III of the ADA.  We merely apply the standard that plaintiff has elected in the proposed settlement to the claims administration website for that same settlement.”  This position seems inconsistent with DOJ’s many settlement agreements which adopt WCAG 2.0 AA or 2.1 AA as the accessibility standard.

The DOJ urged the Court to reject the settlement as not meeting the requirements of FRCP 23 that it be fair, reasonable, and adequate to remedy the alleged disability-based discrimination against class members.

Takeaways and Next Steps

The Alcazar proposed class settlement is noteworthy because most website accessibility lawsuits resolve early and confidentially on an individual basis.  But even more interesting is DOJ’s position about the settlement and its barely concealed hostility towards plaintiffs’ attorneys representing serial plaintiffs.  The SOL sends a clear message that DOJ will scrutinize ADA Title III proposed class action settlements in ways that the plaintiffs’ bar may not appreciate.  DOJ’s scrutiny may result in more cases resolving privately on a confidential non-class basis.   

On February 12, 2026, the Court heard the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.  We await its decision.

Edited by: Minh N. Vu

By: Minh N. Vu, Kristina M. Launey & Susan Ryan

Seyfarth Synopsis: ADA Title III lawsuit filings in federal courts remained steady in 2025, with California, Florida, and New York retaining the top three spots for filings, and no slowdown in sight.

We’ve been tracking ADA Title III cases in federal court for 13 years now, starting back when there were fewer than 3,000 cases filed in an entire year.  The number of cases climbed to a high of 11,452 in 2021 and then dropped to the 8,000 range where it remained in 2025.

There were 8,667 ADA Title III lawsuits filed in or removed to federal district courts in 2025 – 2% fewer than in 2024.  Despite the slight decline, the number is still three times higher than the number of filings in 2013, when we first started compiling this data.

[Total Number of ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits Filed Each Year, January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2025; 2013: 2,722; 2014: 4,436 – 63% increase over 2013; 2015: 4,789 – 8% increase over 2014; 2016: 6,601 – 38% increase over 2015; 2017: 7,663 – 16% increase over 2016; 2018: 10,163 – 33% increase over 2017; 2019: 11,053 – 9% increase over 2018; 2020: 10,982 – 1% decrease from 2019; 2021: 11,452 – 4% increase over 2020; 2022: 8,694 – 24% decrease from 2021; 2023: 8,227 – 5% decrease from 2022; 2024: 8,800 – 7% increase over 2023; 2025: 8,667 – 2% decrease from 2024]

California retained its top spot with 3,252 lawsuits.  Florida moved into second place with 1,823 cases.  For the second year in a row, New York federal courts took the third spot with 1,471 cases.  New York’s change in position reflects the migration of plaintiffs to New York and New Jersey state court after the federal courts started applying more rigorous standing requirements in website accessibility cases. 

[California, New York, Florida ADA Tile III Federal Lawsuits 2013-2025: California: 2013: 995; 2014 1,866; 2015: 1,659; 2016: 2,458; 2017: 2,751; 2018: 4,249; 2019: 4,794; 2020: 5,869; 2021: 5,930; 2022: 2,519; 2023: 2,380; 2024: 3,252; 2025: 3,252; Florida: 2013: 816; 2014: 1,553; 2015: 1,338; 2016:1,663; 2017: 1,488; 2018: 1,941; 2019: 1,885; 2020: 1,208; 2021: 1,054; 2022: 1,350; 2023: 1,415; 2024: 1,627; 2025: 1,823; New York: 2013: 125; 2014: 212; 2015: 366; 2016: 543; 2017: 1,023; 2018: 2,338; 2019: 2,635; 2020: 2,238; 2021: 2,774; 2022: 3,173; 2023: 2,759; 2024: 2,220; 2025: 1,471]

Illinois is #4 on the list with 659 federal lawsuits – 260 more than in 2024.  It appears that some of the most prolific New York plaintiffs’ lawyers have moved their work to this state.  Missouri is #5 on the list with 183 cases, moving up from 7th position in 2024 when it had 135 cases.

Rounding out the Top Ten are Minnesota (179), Texas (177), Pennsylvania (95), New Jersey (91) and Indiana (88).  The Hoosier state is a newcomer to the list, pushing out Georgia.

[Top 10 States with Federal ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025:  California: 3,252; Florida: 1,823; New York: 1,471; Illinois: 659; Missouri: 183; Minnesota: 179; Texas: 177; Pennsylvania: 95; New Jersey: 91; Indiana: 88]

The only states with no federal ADA Title III lawsuits in 2025 were Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

We have no reason to believe that the numbers will change much in 2026, though more cases might shift to state court.  In the past few years, California courts have been aggressively declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in cases alleging ADA Title III violations, thereby eliminating monetary damages for the plaintiff.  As a result, many plaintiffs have opted to file in state court. And as discussed above, New York federal courts are less receptive to plaintiffs in website accessibility cases than they once were.  Stay tuned for our annual crystal ball blog post for 2026 predictions for ADA Title III litigation and DOJ enforcement.

A note on our methodology: Our research involves a painstaking manual process of going through all federal cases that were coded as “ADA-Other,” manually culling out the ADA Title II cases in which the defendants are state and local governments, and categorizing them by state.  The manual process means there is the small possibility of human error.

Screenshot 2025-12-04 161215
Image of a cartoon pregnant woman with a parking logo.

By: Pamela C. Huynh and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A plaintiff with a mobility disability sued the Florida government claiming that pregnancy parking permits violate ADA Title II and the Rehabilitation Act.

In July 2025, the Florida legislature passed a law allowing pregnant women to park in accessible parking spaces which federal law requires for the exclusive use of people with disabilities.  Some in the disability community are not pleased, and one is mounting a legal challenge.

Section 320.0849 of the Florida Statutes authorizes the issuance of “Expectant Mother Parking Permits” that are valid for a year for a $15 fee.  Legislative sponsors acknowledged that pregnancy is not a disability, but argued that the measure would provide convenience for expectant mothers.

On October 27, 2025, plaintiff Olivia Keller filed a lawsuit alleging that the new law violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  These laws prohibit disability discrimination by state governments and recipients of federal assistance, respectively.  Keller uses a power wheelchair and claims that the law exacerbates the existing shortage of accessible parking.  She argues that, by allowing individuals without disabilities to park in accessible parking spaces, the state of Florida has reduced the number of federally mandated accessible parking spaces under the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and effectively excluded her from accessible parking.  She seeks a declaration that the state law violates federal law and an injunction to invalidate issued permits and stop new ones from being issued.   

This case raises a number of issues, including Article III standing, the Supremacy Clause, and preemption.  Stay tuned for further updates.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

Screenshot 2025-11-24 130713
Image of a QR tag.

By: Pamela C. Huynh

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Does the ADA require retailers to add QR codes to product tags? The Southern District of New York says no.

On November 18, 2025, Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed a complaint brought by a blind plaintiff who claimed that retailer Lululemon violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide QR codes or digital tags on merchandise. The plaintiff argued that QR codes would allow her to access product information using her smartphone.

The Court reiterated that the ADA does not require businesses to alter their inventory or products to accommodate customers with disabilities.  The Court observed that digital tags/QR codes are part of the merchandise, and requiring them would be akin to requiring bookstores to carry Braille books—something courts and the Department of Justice have said the ADA does not mandate.  The decision relied on a line of cases emphasizing that the ADA ensures equal access to goods and services, not changes to the goods themselves.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the retailer failed to provide her with auxiliary aids and services because she did not allege that she informed store employees of her disability or requested assistance.

This is the second decision in favor of retailers concerning digital tags and QR codes.  Plaintiff’s firm advanced these same claims in Bunting v. Gap, Inc., and lost before an EDNY judge last year. 

The takeaway from these decisions is that while digital tags and/or QR codes may become an industry standard in the future, they are not required by the ADA.  And most importantly, it is still legal and acceptable to provide prompt service to customers with sight disabilities who need assistance. 

Edited by: Minh N. Vu

Screenshot 2025-10-27 083335
Image of an AI chip.

By: Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Pro se plaintiffs are filing more ADA Title III and FHA complaints using AI tools that enable harassing litigation tactics.

One of the trends we did not predict at the beginning of this year was how AI tools such as Copilot, Gemini, and ChatGPT would change the landscape of lawsuits and claims brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA).  After seeing our clients hit by an unusually high number of pro se complaints and lawsuits that appear to involve the use of AI tools, we decided to take a look at the numbers.

Turns out, there have been 40% more federal pro se ADA Title III lawsuits filed in 2025 than 2024, based on a comparison of average monthly numbers.  Federal pro se FHA lawsuits jumped by a whopping 69% during this same period.  According to our LexMachina search, pro se plaintiffs filed 1,774 federal lawsuits alleging ADA Title III violations for all of 2024, compared to 1,867 in the first nine months of 2025.  Pro se plaintiffs filed 421 federal lawsuits alleging FHA violations in all of 2024, compared to 531 in the first nine months of 2025.  These numbers do not include complaints filed in state court or before administrative agencies where most fair housing grievances are brought.

Most pro se litigants we encounter are using AI tools to help them litigate.  The tell-tale signs of such use include the citation of non-existent cases (with parentheticals, no less), descriptions of case holdings that are completely wrong, substantive briefs “written” in less time than it would take anyone to type the document, and work product that does not match the plaintiff’s spoken English skills. 

NBC recently reported that many litigants are utilizing ChatGPT to bring lawsuits instead of hiring counsel.  And while some may say this is a positive development for the private enforcement of the ADA and FHA, there are also adverse consequences.  Unconstrained by rules of professional ethics or the fear of being disbarred, pro se litigants have been known to file briefs with fake cases and bombard defendants with frivolous accusations, demands or motions.  We’ve seen pro se plaintiffs generate briefs to oppose routine extension and pro hac vice motions that opposing counsels would rarely oppose.  These actions drive up defense costs substantially, and create more work for judges that must intervene to stop the bad behavior. 

Some courts have taken action to sanction pro se litigants that have used AI tools improperly, and have dismissed some cases outright for the misuse of such tools.  U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko of the District of Ohio has a standing order banning the use of AI in the preparation of any document filed with the court.  We predict more judges will be addressing the abusive use of AI in the future.

What are companies targeted by aggressive pro se plaintiffs to do?  While it may be tempting to just pay to make these pro se plaintiffs go away, capitulation will only reward and encourage more bad behavior.  Mounting a vigorous defense in meritorious cases — including seeking sanctions for when a pro se plaintiff uses AI tools to mislead the court or harass defendants — may be a better option.

department-40657_1280
Department of Justice logo.

By: Kristina M. Launey and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: DOJ’s regulatory agenda includes intent to conduct economic impact reviews of Title II and III 2010 regulations and re-examine the Title II website accessibility regulations. 

Among the many interests of our brilliant law librarian, Susan Ryan, is reading the Federal Register Table of Contents for developments relative to our Firm’s practices every day.  The September 22, 2025, Federal Register contained a notice listing three items related to the regulations issued under Titles II and III of the ADA that caught her eye.

Two of the items are mandatory 10-year reviews to assess the economic impact of the ADA Title II and Title III regulations which the DOJ published in 2010.  While Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 610) (RFA) requires these reviews, it is curious that the DOJ is initiating the reviews now, five years later.  It could be that the DOJ is just getting its regulatory house in order.  Or it could be that it is using the review process to cut back on regulatory requirements.  As you may recall, the DOJ just last month terminated two pending rulemakings about accessible equipment, accessible furniture and accessible routes in public areas to comply with Executive Order 14192. 

The RFA process requires the DOJ to gather public comments and assess whether the rule should be maintained, modified, or rescinded based on factors set forth in the RFA. The Notice states the DOJ’s intent to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to review the ADA Title II and Title III regulations at 28 CFR 35 and 36 on a “To Be Determined” timetable.

The third item concerns the DOJ’s plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to “reconsider whether some of the regulatory provisions imposed by the April 24, 2024 rule” — which requires state and local government websites and mobile apps to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA — “could be made less costly.” The timing for this NPRM is currently “To Be Determined.”

Should we see any further movement on this from DOJ, or a timetable set, rest assured Susan will sound the alarm and we will update you all.