By Kristina M. Launey & Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs filed 2,452 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court in 2024 – a 13% decrease from 2023. 

Website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court fell for the second consecutive year in 2024, with a significant decrease from 2023 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 2024 was 2,452.  This number is 342 fewer than 2023’s total of 2,749, representing a 13% decrease. 

[Graph: ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits in Federal Court 2017-2024: 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). *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

Website accessibility lawsuits accounted for 28% percent of the total number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2024 (2,452 out of 8,800 cases).  In 2023, website accessibility lawsuits made up 34 percent of all the ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court (2,794 out of 8,227 cases).  Also, as shown in the graph below, the number of filings per month ranged from a low of 167 cases in April to a high of 261 cases in October. 

[Graph: Total Number of Website Accessibility Lawsuits Filed by Month (Jan. 2024 – Dec. 2024): Jan. 2024 (168), Feb. 2024 (210), Mar. 2024 (188), Apr. 2024 (167), May 2024 (203), Jun. 2024 (196), Jul. 2024 (179), Aug. 2024 (205), Sep. 2024 (230), Oct. 2024 (261), Nov. 2024 (220), Dec. 2024 (225). *The number of cases that could be identified through a diligent search.]

New York federal courts continued to be the busiest with 1,564 lawsuits.  Florida was a distant second with 470 lawsuits, up from 385 in 2023.  Minnesota came in third with 114 lawsuits.  Pennsylvania passed Illinois for the fourth spot with 103 lawsuits.  Illinois did manage to stay in the top 5 with 93 lawsuits.  Remarkably, California’s federal courts only had three new website accessibility lawsuits last year.

[Graph: Federal ADA Title III Website Accessibility Lawsuits per State, Jan. 2024 – Dec. 2024: NY 1,564, FL 470, MN 114, PA 103, IL 93, NJ 37, MO 35, WI 14, MA 10, IN 6, CA 3, NC 2, LA 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 2017-2024: NY: 2017 (335), 2018 (1,564), 2019 (1,358), 2020 (1,694), 2021 (2,074), 2022 (2,560), 2023 (2,152), 2024 (1,564); FL: 2017 (325), 2018 (576), 2019 (529), 2020 (302), 2021 (185), 2022 (310), 2023 (385), 2024 (470); PA: 2017 (58), 2018 (42), 2019 (92), 2020 (173), 2021 (167), 2022 (216), 2023 (143), 2024 (103); CA: 2017 (9), 2018 (10), 2019 (121), 2020 (223), 2021 (360), 2022 (126), 2023 (30), 2024 (3).]

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. Although the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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.

In California, both federal and state courts of appeal 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.  Thus, we predict fewer website accessibility cases in both California state and federal courts in the future; though 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.

Why was there an overall decrease in the number of website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the country last year?  While there is no way to know for certain, we think there are at least three possible factors in play. 

First, and most significantly, more and more plaintiffs’ firms responsible for historically significant numbers of filings have been filing website accessibility lawsuits in state courts instead of federal court.  Since these filings are difficult to track, it may well be that the total number of website accessibility lawsuits increased year-over-year when accounting for state court filings.  

Second, some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers who used to file a substantial number of these lawsuits have been less active in this space. 

Third, more businesses are making website accessibility a priority which, in turn, may have reduced the number of inaccessible websites to sue.   

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.  What the numbers will look like remains to be seen.   

***

About our methodology:  Our 2024 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. 

Edited by John W. Egan

andy-luo-8hjHLRkrxSk-unsplash
Image of a service dog.

By: Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent case from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida illustrates how businesses should handle scenarios where service animals present health risks to others with severe allergies.

We all know that public accommodations must allow service animals accompanying individuals with disabilities onto their premises, but what if doing so places others with severe allergies at risk?  A recent Florida federal court’s decision provides insight on how this scenario (and others involving “direct threats” to health and safety) should be handled.  

The plaintiff in this case used a dog which was trained to alert her to, and mitigate, self-harming behavior caused by post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and bipolar disorder.   Specifically, the dog would press on plaintiff’s body, lick and claw her to “ground” her during episodes of anxiety.  Based on these facts, the court concluded that the dog qualified as a service animal.  The plaintiff brought the service dog to an appointment with a new doctor.  When the doctor saw the dog, she informed her employee that she was severely allergic to dogs and could not see the plaintiff with the dog.  The employee then informed the plaintiff that she could either see the doctor while the service dog remained with her companion, or she could reschedule to see another doctor with the dog.  After the plaintiff became agitated and accused the medical practice of violating the ADA, the employee called the sheriff.

The court began its analysis by recognizing the Department of Justice’s guidance that “allergies are not enough to except a place of public accommodation from accommodating a service animal” and both the animal’s handler and the individual with allergies should be accommodated “by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.”  However, the court held that “[d]espite this rule, a service animal may nonetheless be excluded if it poses a direct threat to the health and safety of persons providing or receiving services from an accommodation.”  The court ultimately concluded that the medical practice had properly conducted “an individualized assessment” of the direct threat to the doctor and that its conclusion was objectively reasonable.  The court focused on the doctor’s testimony about her severe allergy to dogs, based on her prior consultation with her doctor and her own knowledge of her allergy and its symptoms.  The court also focused on the reasonable modifications offered to the plaintiff that would allow her to receive medical services, albeit from a different physician who did not have a dog allergy, which the plaintiff rejected.  It also considered the fact that the medical practice made a one-time decision “on the spot,” noting that the regulation requires only a “reasonable judgment” in determining if a direct threat exists under the circumstances.

There are a few important takeaways from this decision:

First, it highlights the importance of considering (1) the specific facts presented by a situation in assessing whether a service animal poses a direct threat to someone else at the public accommodation, and (2) measures that would allow the person with a service animal to receive services from the public accommodation while mitigating the risk to the health and safety of others.  In this case, the medical practice considered the severity of the doctor’s allergy, and offered other options which would have allowed the plaintiff to receive medical services. 

Second, this case was decided only after an evidentiary trial, underscoring the difficulty of securing early dismissals of these types of cases.  Thus, businesses that face unruly behavior by animals or animals that otherwise pose health risks should be thoughtful in handling these situations.  They should conduct a fact-specific, individualized assessment of the risk that includes an exploration of alternatives that would mitigate that risk but still provide equal access to their products and services.  The case also illustrates how businesses should be prepared to go the distance in litigation if necessary (i.e. summary judgment and/or trial) if they decide to exclude the animal on the basis of a “direct threat” that it presents.

Edited by: John W. Egan  

department-40657_1280
Department of Justice logo.

By: Ashley S. Jenkins and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth synopsis: The Trump DOJ rescinded five COVID-19 related documents and six older guidance documents designed to educate businesses on the requirements of the ADA, claiming that the recission will reduce the burden on businesses to review them.

On March 19, 2025, to comply with President Trump’s January 20, 2025 memorandum “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis”, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that, to “deliver price relief to consumers” it was withdrawing eleven guidance documents it had issued over the years to educate covered businesses on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and how to implement them in their operations. The DOJ said “[t]oday’s withdrawal of 11 pieces of unnecessary and outdated guidance will aid businesses in complying with the ADA by eliminating unnecessary review and focusing only on current ADA guidance.”  It should be noted that neither the ADA nor DOJ required public accommodations to review these guidance documents in the first place.

The withdrawn guidances include 5 “question-and-answer” documents issued during the COVID-19 pandemic to assist individuals with disabilities and businesses in understanding their rights and obligations during that time, a 10-part training program called Reaching Out to Individuals with Disabilities that educates businesses on the various requirements of the ADA, and guidance documents specifically targeting hotels and lodging facilities, gas stations, and retail establishments.

The full list of eleven rescinded guidance documents are:

  1. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a business stop me from bringing in my service animal because of the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  2. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the Department of Justice issue exemptions from mask requirements? (2021)
  3. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Are there resources available that help explain my rights as an employee with a disability during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  4. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a hospital or medical facility exclude all “visitors” even where, due to a patient’s disability, the patient needs help from a family member, companion, or aide in order to equally access care? (2021)
  5. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the ADA apply to outdoor restaurants (sometimes called “streateries”) or other outdoor retail spaces that have popped up since COVID-19? (2021)
  6. Expanding Your Market: Maintaining Accessible Features in Retail Establishments (2009)
  7. Expanding Your Market: Gathering Input from Customers with Disabilities (2007)
  8. Expanding Your Market: Accessible Customer Service Practices for Hotel and Lodging Guests with Disabilities (2006)
  9. Reaching out to Customers with Disabilities (2005)
  10. Americans with Disabilities Act: Assistance at Self-Serve Gas Stations (1999)
  11. Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA (1999)

To further implement the Executive Order, the DOJ said it would highlight tax incentives that are available to businesses that make accessibility improvements.  The DOJ has added a link to a 2006 guidance about those tax incentives from the homepage of www.ada.gov. 

While the guidance documents issued during the COVID-19 pandemic are arguably no longer necessary, for those of us who specialize in this area of the law, they provided useful guidance on how certain legal principles in the ADA should be applied and interpreted outside of the COVID-19 context.  The other guidance documents may be older, but some of them still contain highly relevant information in areas where the law has not changed, and were useful explanation to businesses of how different parts of the ADA statute and regulations should be applied by businesses.  In short, while the recission of these guidance documents does not substantively impact the ADA’s requirements, it does beg the question of whether they will be replaced by new guidance documents that will take a more lenient and business-friendly approach to ADA compliance. 

Edited by Kristina Launey

pexels-karolina-grabowska-5632382
Image of a shopping cart on top of a computer.

By: Lotus Cannon and Kristina Launey

Seyfarth Synopsis: Are web-only businesses subject to Title III? A Minnesota federal court joins the controversy and says yes.

Courts around the country are split on the issue of whether a “place of public accommodation” subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act must have a physical location where it serves the public.  A federal trial court in Minnesota recently denied a web-only business’s motion to dismiss, ruling that web-only businesses are covered by Title III, siding with the courts that have concluded that no physical place is required.

Recognizing the disagreement among federal appellate and trial courts on this issue, as well as the fact that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (within which the District of Minnesota sits) has not opined on the issue, the Court went to great lengths to justify its decision that a “public accommodation” does not have to be a physical place.

First, the Court sought to distinguish the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit decisions finding that public accommodations are limited to “physical structures” by stating that those cases were about whether the ADA applied to the content of insurance policies, not websites. 

Second, the Court stated that those courts had “allowed the canon of noscitur a sociis to play too great a role in their analysis.”  This cannon of statutory construction states that a word is known by the company it keeps and is used to interpret ambiguous words.  The Court insisted that the application of this rule “ignores the maxim that a remedial statute should be read broadly” and runs counter to the “ADA’s intent, which Congress enacted ‘to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.’” 

Third, the Court gave no weight to the dictionary definition of the word “place” in the phrase “place of public accommodation” because that definition, in the Court’s view, was “inconclusive.”

Fourth, the Court noted that Congress’ failure to amend the ADA to explicitly include websites should not be construed as Congress’s intention to exclude websites. To the contrary, the Court posited that the lack of legislative action could be interpreted as an understanding that no amendment is required to cover online-only businesses.

The bottom line is that the Court found the exclusion of online-only businesses from the ADA’s coverage inconsistent with the ADA’s mandate to ensure equal access for individuals with disabilities to businesses’ goods and services, noting that shopping via retail websites is not meaningfully different from shopping at physical stores. 

While we have yet to see other district courts in the Eighth Circuit weigh in on this issue, this decision may spark a trend of web accessibility lawsuits in Minnesota and the Eighth Circuit, as we have seen from plaintiff-friendly rulings in New York. 

Edited by: Minh N. Vu

By Minh N. Vu, Kristina Launey, and Susan Ryan

Seyfarth Synopsis: The two-year decline in ADA Title III filings stopped in 2024, with plaintiffs increasing filings back to 8,800 complaints in 2024.

When we first started tracking ADA Title III lawsuits in 2013, the total for the year was only 2,722.  The number climbed steadily to an all-time high of 11,452 in 2021, and then fell to 8,694 in 2022.  2023 saw another decrease to approximately 8,200 filings.  What would 2024 bring? More of the same or a return to the ADA Title III litigation heyday?  The answer is: something in between.

In 2024, plaintiffs filed 8,800 ADA Title III complaints in federal district courts.  This represents a 7% increase from 2023.  And it’s more than triple the number of filings we saw in 2013, when we first started compiling these numbers.

[Total Number of ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits Filed Each Year, January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2024; 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]

After two years of being behind New York, California regained its top position with 3,252 filings.  That’s a whopping 37 percent increase over 2023, but still significantly lower than its all-time high of 5,930 in 2021.  One law firm drove the increase by filing 2,598 of these cases. 

New York took second place, with 2,220 cases.  We attribute the decrease to several plaintiffs’ firms now filing in New York or New Jersey state court after several unfavorable decisions from NY federal judges. 

Florida came in third for the seventh year in a row, with 1,627 cases.  Rounding out the top ten were Texas (224) Illinois (199), Pennsylvania (143), Missouri (135), Minnesota (134), New Jersey (134) and Georgia (107).  Minnesota is a newcomer to the top ten list, taking the space left by Tennessee, which dropped out of the list.

[Top 10 States with Federal ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024:  New York: 3,252; California: 2,220; Florida: 1,627; Texas: 224; Illinois: 199; Pennsylvania: 143; Missouri: 135; Minnesota: 134; New Jersey: 134; Georgia: 107]

Every year, there are some states with no ADA Title III filings at all.  This year, those states are Alaska, Hawai’i, Iowa, Montana, Vermont and West Virginia.  Surprisingly enough, North Dakota, which has had zero lawsuits from 2013 – 2023, broke its streak with two pro se cases in 2024 about pool lifts – a topic we’ve heard little about in a while. 

[California, New York, Florida ADA Tile III Federal Lawsuits 2013-2024: 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; 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; 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]

Filings remained fairly steady throughout the year, ranging from a low of 633 in January (often a low month) to a high of 815 in October.  July and August were tied for second place with 750 filings each month.  The only other month of the year below 700 filings was June with 676.

[Total Number of Federal ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed Per Month January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024: January: 633; February: 739; March: 792; April: 710; May: 730; June: 676; July: 749; August: 750; September: 739; October: 815; November: 744; December: 723]

What’s in store for 2025?  We predict the numbers will remain between 8,000 and 9,000.  Although we predict less enforcement of Title III of the ADA by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), the reduction will have little impact on the number of lawsuits filed because the DOJ rarely had to file suit to enforce the law, even under Democratic administrations.  Whether private citizens and advocacy groups will step up enforcement efforts to fill the void remains to be seen.  We do expect private lawsuits to increase, though they will likely file more in state courts than federal courts, according to the trends we’ve anecdotally been seeing. We only report on federal lawsuit filings – not state filings – because the state court reporting services are less reliable for accurate data. For more predictions and our 2024 year in review, please see our prior post.

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.

gavel-8436504_1280
Image of a legal gavel.

By: Pamela C. Huynh, Minh N. Vu and John W. Egan

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Concerned that serial plaintiffs are not actually ensuring that defendants are removing access barriers under their confidential settlement agreements, EDNY Judge Cogan takes charge. 

Be careful what you ask for – that’s the adage that a serial plaintiff and her attorney should have considered before asking U.S. District Judge Cogan to make defendants pay the $9,000 they still owed under a settlement agreement resolving an ADA Title III access suit.  Instead, they got a harsh rebuke and a decision that conditioned their judgment for the overdue payment on their (1) disclosure to the court of all of confidential settlement agreements for past EDNY lawsuits, and (2) submission of evidence that remediation has been completed under all of those agreements. 

The plaintiff in this case had sued the defendants, a restaurant and an affiliated property company, with a “cookie-cutter complaint” listing more than 15 pages of physical accessibility violations.  The parties resolved the case in open court with an agreement that required a $10,000 settlement payment and only a handful of changes to the restaurant.  When the defendants failed to pay $9,000 of the settlement, the plaintiff filed a motion with the court seeking an order compelling payment, but did not reference any of the remediation work required under the agreement.

Judge Cogan was not pleased.  He first pointed out that he had no authority to order injunctive relief to remedy a breach of the agreement, and that the only relief available was a judgment for $9,000.  Next, Judge Cogan expressed concern “that Title III of the ADA has primarily become a tool not used to ensure disabled persons can access privately operated public accommodations but instead used by a specialized plaintiff’s bar against ‘mom and pop’ operations (i.e., bodegas, bars, restaurants, retail and convenience stores) to extract attorneys’ fees.”  Judge Cogan also pointed out that the vast majority of ADA Title III settlements result in a “plain vanilla stipulation of dismissal (or a notice of dismissal if the defendant agrees to settle before appearing),” where, “[f]or all the court knows, nothing happened except the payment of a nominal sum to the plaintiff and the payment of a far more substantial fee to the plaintiff’s lawyers.”   “[T]o ensure that this action has been brought for plaintiff’s benefit, and not the benefit of her attorney,” Judge Cogan stated that the court would stay the judgment for the outstanding $9,000 until the plaintiff proved that the remedial changes required in the agreement at issue — as well as in all other agreements reached by her in cases filed before the court— have been fully implemented.  The decision also required plaintiff to provide copies of all of her other settlement agreements from cases before this court for its review. 

Plaintiff promptly filed a letter seeking clarification of the decision in which she also pointed out that the time for the defendants to complete the remediation had not yet expired so she did not reference it in her original motion.  In response, the court issued a Final Injunction and Order that differed from the prior decision.  The Final Injunction and Order entered a judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, for the $9,000 owed under the settlement agreement, and directed the defendants to complete the agreed-upon remediation by May of this year.   The Court then issued a clarifying Order, that same day, indicating that “[t]he only cases requiring proof of performance are those that have been brought before the undersigned.” 

While the Final Injunction and Order and clarifying Order tempered the initial decision, the matter is another example of district judges in New York becoming more frustrated that Title III of the ADA has become “a means of securing fees for plaintiff’s attorney[s]” and not a means of improving accessibility for individuals with disabilities.  It appears that judges in New York may be more willing to take matters into their own hands to ensure that when serial ADA litigants resolve cases, remediation of access barriers is actually the result.

smartphone-1184883_1280
Cartoon phone.

By: Ashley S. Jenkins and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth synopsis: The DOJ’s new step-by-step guidance for state and local governments on how to comply with new regulations that mandate accessible web content is also useful for public accommodations looking to make their websites and mobile apps accessible to individuals with disabilities.

In April 2024, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published a new regulation setting technical standards that state and local governments must follow to make their web content (e.g. websites, mobile apps, information on third party websites) accessible to people with disabilities.  That rule requires covered entities to make their web content conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Version 2.1, Level AA (“WCAG 2.1 AA”), subject to a few limited exceptions, as we discussed in a prior blog post.  The DOJ followed up a month later with a Small Entity Compliance Guide explaining the rule and its exceptions, and then on January 8, 2025, issued a “resource” document (the “Resource Document”) containing step-by-step guidance for how these entities should approach the daunting task of making their web content conform with WCAG 2.1 AA.

While the DOJ issued the Resource Document for state and local governments, the document is useful for public accommodations that seek to create, implement, or refine their own digital accessibility programs.  This challenge is (or should be) top of mind for all businesses that interact with the public on the web given the thousands of lawsuits filed each year about websites and mobile apps that are allegedly not accessible to persons with disabilities.

The key steps DOJ recommends in the Resource Document that entity take to make its digital assets conform to WCAG 2.1 AA are:

  1. Identify key personnel within your organization to be responsible for ensuring digital assets conform to WCAG 2.1 AA.  These individuals will likely include IT personnel, marketing personnel who create web content, procurement personnel, and members of risk, compliance, and/or legal departments.  The Resource Document recommends making sure these individuals are aware of their roles and responsibilities. If current staff lack the requisite expertise, organizations should consider engaging an outside expert to provide training or assistance.
  2. Train Staff.  Individuals responsible for digital accessibility compliance must be trained on what digital accessibility is and why it is important.  The training must be tailored to their role (e.g., training for web designers will be different from training for marketing staff).  Anyone who is permitted to make changes to the website or mobile app, and who field inquiries regarding accessibility from the public should receive some form of digital accessibility training relevant to their role.
  3. Identify the Digital Content your Entity Provides.  Before an organization can start addressing digital accessibility, it must identify the websites, mobile apps, and other web content that it makes available to the public.  Entities should prepare a list of all websites, mobile apps, and third-party platforms (e.g. social media) where their web content is placed, and the type of content on those pages (HTML, PDFs, Videos, Images).
  4. Understand What Types of Web Content Can Be Given Lower Priority.  The regulation for state and local governments actually exempts certain web content from WCAG 2.1 AA conformance.  While these exemptions do not apply to public accommodations at this time, public accommodations can consider this list informative as to what the DOJ might not focus on an enforcement effort, and thus put a lower priority on the following items in their remediation efforts:
    • Archived web content
    • Content posted by third parties
    • Password-protected individualized electronic documents
    • Preexisting electronic documents (PDFs, word processor files, presentation formats and spreadsheets)
    • Preexisting social media posts
  5. Determine Which Content Must Comply.  After Step 4, entities should determine what specific content remains to be remediated and who within the organization controls that content.
  6. Determine What Actions Need to be Taken.  Once an entity has a complete list of its public facing digital content, it must audit this content against WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria to determine what pages/components of the content do not conform to WCAG 2.1 AA and require remediation.  The Resource Document is a bit vague about how to go about this audit but does make clear that automated testing tools alone are insufficient because those tools cannot test for all aspects of accessibility.  Thus, a proper audit must include some combination of automated and manual assessment.  In our experience, few organizations have the internal expertise to conduct an audit of their websites or mobile apps.  We recommend hiring a reputable third-party digital accessibility expert to conduct a manual and automated audit of websites and mobile apps.  Hiring the right consultant and determining the most appropriate (and cost effective) form to receive the audit results can be challenging and can often benefit from guidance from attorneys experienced in digital accessibility.
  7. Prioritize Remediation.  After receiving audit results, entities must prioritize the required remediation actions.  The DOJ suggests prioritizing the remediation of issues that (1) affect key tasks; (2) pertain to frequently accessed content; (3) have been flagged as inaccessible by individuals with disabilities; (4) are in development; (5) appear across multiple web pages, like navigation menus, search features, and standardized footers; and (6) are based on a template.
  8. Review Relevant Vendor Contracts.  Many organizations engage third-party vendors to create or provide content for their websites and mobile apps. The DOJ recommends the following types of measures to ensure that deliverables conform to WCAG 2.1 AA:  (1) requiring vendors to provide detailed information about the level of accessibility of their product before signing any contracts; (2) asking vendors to include a warranty in their contracts stating that they comply with certain technical standards and applicable Federal and state accessibility laws; (3) including language in their contracts prohibiting vendors from disclaiming any accessibility warranties; (4) requiring vendors to provide indemnification for any breach of any accessibility warranties; (5) testing the accessibility of vendor products.
  9. Create Policies for Digital Accessibility.  The DOJ strongly recommends that entities have digital accessibility policies, and the Resource Document provides links to various resources on how to draft such policies.  In our experience, digital accessibility policies should, at a minimum, identify which assets are covered, the accessibility standard to be applied (and any exceptions), the business unit(s) responsible for ensuring compliance, the process for compliance and considering exceptions, and a process for customers to make accessibility requests or report accessibility issues.

The Resource Document should be required reading for every business with digital assets, as the discussion, examples, and resources are very useful.

Edited by John W. Egan and Kristina Launey

pexels-bertellifotografia-29509451
Image of a pen resting on an agenda labeled 2025.

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: 2024 saw some interesting developments and an uptick in lawsuit filings from 2023; expect less ADA Title III enforcement and rulemaking activity from DOJ in 2025.

The first quarter of this century concluded with yet another busy year for ADA Title III litigation.  While we are still finalizing the numbers, 2024 saw a meaningful increase in federal ADA Title III lawsuits from 2023.  There were also some noteworthy facts and moments. 

Most Prolific Lawsuit Filers.  According to our search in Courthouse News Service, four law firms each filed more than 100 federal ADA Title III lawsuits last year.  So Cal Equal Access Group was the most prolific, filing a whopping 2,598 federal ADA Title III lawsuits in 2024.  Stein Saks in New York trailed behind with 395 lawsuits, followed by Sconzo Law which filed 193 lawsuits, and Gottlieb Associates with 190 lawsuits.  Indeed, the twenty most prolific firms were responsible for more than 4,000 of the federal filings last year. This, of course, doesn’t include lawsuits filed in state courts or demand letters that never appear on court dockets.  

Self-Service Kiosks.  While there have been a number of cases regarding self-service technologies over the years, the two most significant class action battles we have seen regarding the accessibility of self-service check-in kiosks to the blind continue after the federal district courts certified national injunctive relief and California damages classes.  One case went to trial and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff who submitted fee petition in excess of $10M.  Both cases are on appeal.  These cases underscore the importance of considering accessibility when purchasing self-service kiosks and other self-service technologies.  While providing prompt employee assistance can be an alternative to having fully accessible self-service kiosks when no private information is involved, businesses must seriously consider whether such assistance will likely be provided where the kiosks are installed.

Nondairy Milk Litigation Against Coffee Retailers.  One law firm filed class action lawsuits on behalf of various alleged lactose intolerant/dairy allergic plaintiffs against a number of coffee retailers claiming that the additional charge all customers must pay for customizing beverages with non-dairy milk constitutes disability discrimination under the ADA.  Two federal courts have granted motions to dismiss the complaints with leave to amend, and the ADA Title III plaintiff’s bar does not seem interested in jumping on what appears to be a losing bandwagon.

Website Accessibility.  Plaintiffs continued to file large numbers of lawsuits alleging that blind users have been denied access to websites with digital barriers, and the DOJ pursued aggressive enforcement actions on this basis. While few of these cases are litigated, let alone on a class basis, in 2024 a California law firm obtained class certification in one such suit and thereafter settled the case (subject to court approval) for more than $6M in damages and fees.  In an interesting turn, the federal court rejected the proposed class action settlement because, under the agreement, any unclaimed funds would revert back to the defendant.  The court’s rejection of the class settlement may spell trouble for the resolution of that case.

Also, on the subject of websites, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued final regulations containing accessibility requirements for the websites, mobile apps, and other web content of state and local governments, as we have previously discussed.  Just a few days ago, the DOJ followed up with a “resource” document to help covered entities “figure out what they should do to comply with the rule.”  These regulations and the resource document provide a useful roadmap for (but are not binding upon) public accommodations that are developing digital accessibility policies, programs, and processes. 

The DOJ.  Anecdotally — based on our own handling of DOJ investigations for clients — it seems that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country significantly ramped up their ADA Title III enforcement efforts in the past four years.  We saw many more investigations into complaints concerning physical access barriers at public accommodations, websites, and hotel reservations practices.  In one settlement agreement with a hotel company, the DOJ expressed its position – not expressly stated in the ADA regulations for hotel reservations – that (1) accessible hotel rooms must be bookable via loyalty program points, and (2) accessible rooms must be bookable on some third party reservation services.

Physical Access Barriers.  We continued to see a number of lawsuits about physical access barriers in public accommodations, as well as complaints about service animals being subjected to pet fees or paperwork requirements. 

What’s in store for 2025?

We predict that the ADA Title III plaintiff’s bar and their clients will continue to file lawsuits at roughly the same level as 2024.  Most cases will be about physical or digital access barriers.  A smaller percentage will be about operational issues such as a failure to make reasonable modifications to normal policies, practices, and procedures, or provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.  In the effective communication category, a new type of case has emerged involving blind plaintiffs alleging that public accommodations must provide digital wayfinding technology, instead of providing employee assistance to read written information or navigate the facility.  We see this as an uphill battle for plaintiffs as the regulations explicitly allow employee assistance to facilitate effective communication.

We believe there will be a significant change in how the DOJ enforces Title III of the ADA.  In the first Trump Administration, the DOJ seemingly conducted very few investigations into allegedly inaccessible websites or other digital content. The second Trump Administration will likely repeat this approach.  The DOJ may also be more flexible in negotiating resolutions with public accommodations.  One thing is certain:  The DOJ under President Trump will not be looking to expand the scope of the ADA’s coverage.

The incoming administration will also be less likely to weigh in on any private party ADA Title III lawsuits through intervention or filing of Statements of Interest – at least in favor of plaintiffs.  And, finally, given the Trump Administration’s mandate to reduce regulations, new regulatory activity in the ADA Title III space will be very unlikely.  This means pending rulemakings for accessible self-service kiosks and EV charging stations at the U.S. Access Board may stall.

Stay tuned to our blog for updates, and Happy 2025!

Edited by Kristina Launey & John W. Egan

pexels-jean-daniel-2570139
Image of a football on a field.

By: Ashley Jenkins and Kristina Launey

Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal court recently held that a football stadium must make reasonable modifications to its seating policy to allow a wheelchair user with a ticket for a non-wheelchair accessible seat access to view the game in person.

The football season is well underway, and a recent decision from a federal California Court serves as a reminder that stadiums must offer some form of reasonable modification for wheelchair users who do not have a ticket for an accessible wheelchair space at a game. 

The Complaint alleged the following: One of the plaintiffs — a 78-year old grandfather with polio who uses a wheelchair — received a ticket to see a game with his family.  However, none of the family’s tickets were for wheelchair accessible seats (i.e., open spaces for a wheelchair) and could only be reached by stairs.  As there were a number of unoccupied wheelchair seats nearby, the grandfather took one of those seats.  Stadium security officers refused to let the grandfather remain in that seat, claiming it was against policy, and told the plaintiff he could watch the game on the TV in the concourse.  When the family objected, the security officers threatened to eject the whole family if they did not stop complaining. The family had to carry the grandfather to a non-accessible seat which embarrassed him and prevented him from using the restroom during the game.  Meanwhile, the wheelchair space remained empty for the entire game.

The grandfather and his son brought suit, alleging that the stadium owner had discriminated against them in violation of the ADA and California’s Unruh and Disabled Persons Acts. Plaintiffs argued that the stadium owner had failed to make a reasonable modification to its normal seating policy to allow the grandfather to watch the game in person in an accessible location and retaliated against them when they complained by threatening to eject them from the game.   

The stadium owner moved to dismiss the case, arguing, among other things, that the ADA regulations have detailed ticketing requirements and none of them require stadiums to allow persons who do not have a ticket for a wheelchair seat to occupy such a seat.  The Court disagreed, holding that: “Whether or not defendants were required to permit the [plaintiffs] to use the empty wheelchair seats [they] had identified, the ADA required them to offer [the plaintiff] some reasonable accommodation to account for his wheelchair-bound status.”  In short, the Court found that the ADA required that the stadium make some reasonable modification beyond what was offered – watching the game in the concourse on a TV.  The Court also held that the Complaint stated a claim for retaliation based on the alleged threatened ejection from the game.

It is important to keep in mind that this was just a decision on a motion to dismiss in which the Court had to assume that all the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs are true.  What actually transpired, and the legal decisions that flow from those facts, may be much different after discovery and an adjudication on the merits.  Nonetheless, the decision provides some important reminders.  First, adhering to specific regulatory mandates, such as the ADA’s ticketing rules, is not always sufficient.  When there is a request, public accommodations must also make reasonable modifications to normal policies, practices and procedures, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods and services normally provided.  The DOJ has made this clear in other cases.  Second, responding to requests for reasonable modifications with empathy and a willingness to solve the problem at hand can often be a winning strategy for lawsuit avoidance.

Edited by Minh Vu and John Egan

office-925806_1280
Image of computer and coffee mug

By: John W. Egan and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision holding that web-only businesses cannot be sued over the accessibility of their website under the ADA is the first of its kind in the Southern District of New York and may cause forum-shopping serial plaintiffs and their counsel to shift to state court. 

The Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) issued a ruling this week dismissing a website accessibility lawsuit filed under the ADA because the website was not associated with any physical location where goods and services are provided to the public.  This decision, in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., is a noteworthy development because it conflicts with the decisions of many other judges in the SDNY who have held that website-only businesses are covered under the ADA.  The first decision in New York federal court came from Judge Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) in Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, concluding that the ADA covers websites as places of public accommodations.  It should be noted, however, that not all EDNY District Judges have followed Judge Weinstein’s lead.  In 2021, Winegard v. Newsday (Komitee, J.) and Suris v. Gannett (Cogan, J.) went another way, holding that the defendant newspaper publishers did not qualify as a covered “place of public accommodation” under the ADA.  In the months following those two decisions, we noted a 43 percent decrease in the number website accessibility filings in the EDNY.

In High Brew Coffee, the plaintiff alleged he is a blind screen reader user who could not purchase “a twelve pack of Double Expresso flavored coffee” on two occasions because the website was inaccessible.  After reciting the split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals on the question of whether the ADA covers websites without any connection or relationship to physical places of public accommodation, Chief Judge Swain analyzed the Second Circuit’s decision in Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.  That case has been cited by other SDNY District Judges to support their conclusion that websites are places of public accommodation, even though Pallozzi merely held that the ADA’s non-discrimination provisions applied to the allegedly discriminatory terms of an insurance policy purchased at an actual, brick and mortar insurance office.

Chief Judge Swain agreed with the EDNY Judges who interpreted Pallozzi to hold that the ADA regulates the sales of insurance policies at insurance offices, and held that the existence of a physical place is a “conditional precedent . . . [to concluding that] the goods and services sold by that place of public accommodation are swept within the ADA’s remit.” The Chief Judge also analyzed the text of the covered categories of “places of public accommodation” enumerated in the ADA for their plain meaning, and considered Congressional intent dating back more than thirty years.  Chief Judge Swain reasoned that nearly all of the “establishments” listed in the ADA have physical locations, and declined to find (as some other courts had) that the inclusion of a “travel service” and “other service establishment” among the categories of covered public accommodations supports the application of the ADA to an online-only retailer with no physical storefront. 

Interestingly, Chief Judge Swain did not originally preside over this case; the matter was re-assigned to her the after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed.  We will not speculate as to whether the Chief Judge decided it was necessary for her to express her views on this matter, or whether this decision will have an impact on other Judges in the SDNY who have yet to weigh in on this issue.  We do predict, however, that this decision may cool (somewhat) the website accessibility lawsuit frenzy that has besieged New York’s federal courts.  In 2023, 77 percent of the 2,794 website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court were in New York.  After this decision, more serial plaintiffs and their attorneys may choose to file their cases in state court instead.  As we previously reported, we started observing more state court filings in New York, and other jurisdictions such as California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in 2023.  The High Brew Coffee ruling may cause this trend to accelerate in New York.

Additionally, it is possible that the plaintiff will appeal the District Court order in High Brew Coffee to the Second Circuit which would provide much needed clarity on this issue.  Stay tuned for further updates.   

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey