pexels-victor-dutra-3178806-4809515
Blue tsunami.

By: Minh N. Vu

At the beginning of the Trump Administration 2.0, we predicted that there would be no new ADA Title III regulations and that we would see less aggressive DOJ enforcement of the law. We were right on both counts.  And, as widely reported, many attorneys in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, including attorneys in the Disability Rights Section, departed as the Trump Administration established new priorities for the Division’s work.

Will the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, coupled with the imminent departure of Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon, change DOJ’s approach to ADA Title III regulation and enforcement?

Probably not, at least not immediately.

We still do not expect new regulatory activity under Title III during the remaining two years of the Trump Administration.  Nor do we expect DOJ to suddenly return to the more aggressive disability-rights enforcement posture of prior Democratic administrations.  After all, the Administration, not Congress, sets enforcement priorities within DOJ.

But the political landscape has changed in a way that could matter longer term. Civil rights advocates within and outside DOJ now have reason to anticipate that a Democratic administration could return to the White House in two years with a very different enforcement agenda.  In the meantime, those advocates can accumulate complaints, identify patterns of noncompliance, and lay the groundwork for broader investigations that could launch as soon as there is change in administration.

What does this mean for public accommodations?

Businesses with active DOJ investigations should consider resolving them sooner rather than later.  A resolution reached under the current Administration could be significantly less demanding than one negotiated under a future administration with different enforcement priorities. Businesses should also resist assuming that the current decline in visible enforcement means that DOJ is not paying attention to potential Title III violations.  Complaints filed today and patterns of alleged noncompliance identified over the next two years could become the basis for investigations later.  Thus, businesses should take this time to focus on Title III compliance with regard to their public facing facilities, websites, and policies and procedures.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

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

Seyfarth Synopsis: Mid-year federal ADA Title III lawsuit numbers are at an all-time high since 2021.  

Halfway into 2026, the ADA Title III plaintiff’s bar and their clients have filed 5,006 federal ADA Title III suits in federal court – a significant increase from the past four years which had an average of 4,463 filings in the first six months.  If this trend continues, 2026 could end with over 10,000 federal filings – a record since 2021 when the number peaked at an all-time high of 11,452 lawsuits.   

[Mid-Year ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Filings 2017-2026; 2017: 4,127; 2018: 4,965, 20% Increase from 2017; 2019: 5,592, 12% Increase from 2018; 2020: 4,751, 15% Decrease from 2019; 2021: 6,304, 33% Increase from 2020; 2022: 4,914, 22% Decrease from 2021; 2023: 4,081, 17% Decrease from 2022; 2024: 4,280, 5% Increase from 2023; 2025: 4,575, 7% Increase from 2024; 2026: 5,006, 9% Increase from 2025]

Here are the top ten states with the highest number of cases filed so far this year:

[2026 Mid-Year Federal ADA Title III Filings for Top 10 States: NJ: 56; MO: 70; LA: 73; WI: 100; IN: 116; MN: 124; NY: 485; IL: 505; FL: 709; CA: 2,426]

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and their clients continue to bombard the California federal courts with 2,426 lawsuits, despite the courts’ efforts to discourage these lawsuits by refusing to consider state law claims for damages.  Florida came in a distant second with 709 cases filed.  Illinois took the third spot, where there were 505 filings so far this year.  Equal Access Law Group was responsible for 336 of those Illinois filings.  New York, usually showing up in the second or third position dropped to fourth, with 485 filings.  Minnesota took fifth place with 124 cases, 121 of which were filed by the Throndset Michenfelder firm.  Rounding out the top ten are: Indiana (116), Wisconsin (100), Louisiana (73), Missouri (70), and New Jersey (56).

The overall larger number of lawsuits is consistent with our observation that several relatively new plaintiffs’ firms have arrived on the ADA Title III scene.  The decrease in New York filings likely reflects the fact that the federal courts there have applied somewhat more stringent standing standards in website accessibility lawsuits, causing plaintiffs to file in state court instead. 

Check back with us in early 2027 when we will share our final tally and more in-depth analysis for 2026.

Our Methodology:  Our overall ADA Title III lawsuit numbers come from the federal court’s docketing system, PACER.  However, because the area of law code that covers ADA Title III cases also includes ADA Title II cases, our research department reviews the complaints to remove those from the count.

Screenshot 2026-08-17 142818
Image of dog.

By: John W. Egan and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: HUD’s May 22, 2026, memorandum announced that it will, going forward, find reasonable cause under the Fair Housing Act for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation only with respect to service animals, not ESAs.  Housing providers should proceed very cautiously before denying ESA requests.    

***

While this blog primarily focuses on the obligations of places of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”), we occasionally cover issues that arise under both Title III and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) because some businesses establishments, including rental offices, extended stay hotels, and dormitory landlords may be covered under both laws.  One circumstance where this arises is with accommodations for service animals and emotional support animals (“ESAs”).

Many individuals with disabilities rely on animals to assist with limitations presented by their disabilities.  Dogs trained to perform specific work or tasks for a person with a disability are service animals which public accommodations must accommodate under both Title III and the FHA.  While technically not defined as service animals, miniature horses that are trained to perform work or tasks for a person with a disability must also be accommodated under Title III.  ESAs are animals that may ameliorate the symptoms of a person’s disability by their presence, but are not trained to perform any work or tasks for a person with a disability.

For years, the FHA and Title III – as interpreted by the agencies with enforcement and regulatory authority (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) respectively) — have treated ESAs differently.  Title III provides no protection for ESAs, while HUD’s interpretation of the FHA has required housing providers to accommodate ESAs – until now. 

Prior HUD guidance required housing providers, including landlords and condominium/homeowner associations, to allow individuals with disabilities to keep “assistance animals” — a phrase HUD defined to include both service animals and ESAs.  HUD’s 2013 and 2020 guidance documents (the “Guidance Documents”) required housing providers to make exceptions to no-pet policies to allow assistant animals to live with their owners and, in pet-friendly communities, to waive pet fees for ESAs.

However, a May 22, 2026, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) enforcement memorandum (the “HUD Memo“) signals HUD’s intent to treat ESAs in housing more like they are treated in places of public accommodation.  

According to the recent HUD Memo, the Guidance Documents contributed to a tsunami of accommodation requests involving ESAs and a corresponding surge in fair housing complaints filed against housing providers that denied such requests.  HUD reported that more than 20 percent of all fair housing complaints it has received involve ESAs, a situation the agency says “cannot continue.”

As a temporary measure pending future rulemaking, HUD rescinded the Guidance Documents and announced that it will, going forward, find reasonable cause for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation only with respect to service animals, not ESAs.  The Memo explains that Title III’s service animal regulations are “instructive” and states that HUD intends to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to harmonize its regulations with Title III “to the maximum extent possible.”

At first glance, the HUD Memo appears to provide relief for housing providers that have struggled with questionable accommodation requests for ESAs – including those supported by health care provider letters purchased online.  However, housing providers should not assume that the Memo gives them a green light to deny ESA-related accommodation requests for several reasons.

First, the HUD Memo affects only how HUD, a federal agency, will investigate and enforce complaints brought under the federal FHA.  It does not alter state or local fair housing laws, nor does it dictate how state and local enforcement agencies will handle ESA-related accommodation requests.

Many jurisdictions, including California, Illinois, and New York City, have regulations, guidance, and/or enforcement frameworks that expressly recognize ESAs in housing. Housing providers operating in those jurisdictions may still be required to accommodate ESAs notwithstanding HUD’s new enforcement position.  Furthermore, HUD often refers complaints it receives to state agencies for investigation.  It is unclear whether those agencies will honor the HUD Memo’s approach.

Second, individuals who are denied accommodation requests involving ESAs may bypass HUD entirely and proceed directly to federal court under the FHA. Federal courts are not obligated to defer to the HUD Memo because it is an enforcement policy rather than a duly-promulgated regulation.  As a result, courts could reach their own conclusions about whether a housing provider must allow a person with a disability to have an ESA or waive pet related fees.

Third, the rescission of HUD’s prior guidance leaves housing providers without clear direction regarding the information they may request when evaluating accommodation requests involving service animals.

For example, although the HUD Memo states that Title III’s service animal regulations are “instructive,” it does not specify whether housing providers are limited to the two questions that places of public accommodation may ask to verify that an animal qualifies as a service animal.  Applying that limitation in the housing context could prove impractical.  Unlike a service animal’s brief visit to a restaurant, store, or hotel, an animal residing in a housing community raises a variety of ongoing issues, including vaccinations, resident safety, property damage, insurance considerations, allergies, noise, sanitation, and interactions with other residents.

In light of the above, housing providers should not automatically deny all requests involving ESAs. Instead, they should continue to promptly evaluate requests on case-by-case basis using a consistent and documented approach. 

Finally, when HUD initiates the promised rulemaking process, housing providers should actively participate by submitting comments. Their practical experience and operational concerns can play an important role in shaping future regulations governing assistance animals in housing.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

artsybeekids-books-5658928_1920
Image of books and gavel.

By: Ashley S. Jenkins and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) sued Department of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming that the agencies’ Interim Final Rules extending WCAG 2.1 AA compliance deadlines for state and local governments and recipients of HHS assistance violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements and were arbitrary and capricious.

On May 21, 2026, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed a new lawsuit challenging DOJ and HHS’ recent decision to push back deadlines for making WCAG 2.1 AA compliant the websites and mobile apps of state and local governments (previously discussed here), as well as recipients of HHS funding. 

As background, DOJ and HHS issued final rules in 2024 requiring state and local governments with populations over 50,000, as well as recipients of federal funding with 15 or more employees, to make their websites and mobile apps accessible under WCAG 2.1 AA. 

The deadline for larger governments – previously April 24, 2026, is now April 26, 2027.  The deadline for HHS assistance recipients – previously May 11, 2026, is now May 11, 2027. 

The NFB’s suit, filed in Maryland federal court, challenges those extensions under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The NFB argues that DOJ and HHS had no valid “good cause” to bypass the public notice-and-comment requirement before issuing the Interim Rules.  NFB also contends that DOJ’s extension is arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not seriously consider the impact of delaying accessibility on people with disabilities and relied on information that was not actually new. Against HHS, NFB asserts that the agency relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence, did not adequately consider the disability community’s input, and even undermined its own cost-benefit findings by extending the deadlines.

The Complaint includes a number of real-world examples from NFB members who have been harmed by the extension, such as people being unable to complete unemployment applications, register businesses, enroll in classes, access telehealth services, or quickly pay medical bills because websites and digital forms were not accessible. According to the Complaint, these barriers led to delays, added costs, and significant frustration.

The NFB is asking the Court to declare the extensions illegal, vacate (i.e., set aside) the Interim Final Rules entirely, and Order DOJ and HHS to enforce the original deadlines from the 2024 final rules.

What should covered entities do now?  The practical answer is they should be continuing to make their websites and mobile apps accessible without delay. The extension was granted in part to ensure that covered entities would have enough time to comply with their obligations, and DOJ stated in the interim final rule extending the Title II deadlines that it expects to fully implement the regulation at the new deadlines.  From our experience, covered entities will need every minute of additional time to comply.

Edited by: John W. Egan  

pexels-james-l-349383308-34178478
The Gateway Arch

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Missouri lawmakers provide Missouri residents and the Missouri Attorney General with a new tool to combat abusive website accessibility lawsuits, effective August 28, 2026.

By: Minh N. Vu

In early May, the state of Missouri enacted a new law – which becomes operative on August 28, 2026 – to protect Missouri “residents” from abusive lawsuits alleging inaccessible websites or web content.  Missouri ranked sixth in the nation for 2025 website lawsuit filings in our annual review, with 86 such suits, compared to the leader, New York, which had 1,021.  A closer look at the Missouri federal and state court dockets revealed that one plaintiff (represented by a single firm) was responsible for every single one of the 121 website accessibility lawsuits filed in 2024 and 2025.    

The new law authorizes a defendant that is a Missouri resident in a lawsuit alleging that the defendant’s website or web content fails to provide sufficient access under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or similar state laws (a “Web Access Suit”) can file its own civil action in any court of “competent jurisdiction” against the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s attorneys who brought the Web Access Suit to determine if the Web Access Suit is “abusive litigation.”  The law defines “abusive litigation” as litigation whose primary purpose “is obtaining a payment from a defendant due to the costs of defending the action in court.”

The law also empowers the Missouri Attorney General to bring a civil action on behalf of Missouri residents – or intervene in a pending action—against abusive litigation.

To determine if litigation is abusive, courts will consider the “totality of the circumstances.”

The law specifies the following factors to be considered:

(a) Whether the same plaintiff, attorney, or law firm has filed a high number of substantially similar lawsuits without meaningful efforts to resolve or improve accessibility;

(b) Whether the plaintiff provided the defendant with reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct the alleged barrier(s) prior to filing suit;

(c) Any history of sanctions or findings of bad faith against the plaintiff or counsel;

(d) The nature of settlement discussions and the reasonableness of settlement offers and refusals to settle;

(e) Whether any factors under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03(b) exist in the litigation (e.g. filing for an “improper purpose” such as harassment or to increase litigation costs, or without evidentiary support) and whether sanctions are appropriate under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03(c).

Notably, the law establishes a rebuttable presumption that litigation is abusive if a defendant “receives written notice of an alleged website or web content access violation and in good faith initiates substantial steps to correct it within ninety days.”  This rebuttable presumption essentially forces plaintiffs to give defendants ninety days to fix any alleged violations before filing a lawsuit about the violations.  Otherwise, the lawsuit would be presumptively considered abusive litigation.

If a court finds the Web Access Suit to be abusive, it can order the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys in the Web Access Suit to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs to defend that lawsuit, as well as the fees and costs it incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit authorized by the new Missouri law.  A court may also order punitive damages or sanctions against the law firm and plaintiff that filed the abusive lawsuit, not to exceed three times the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by the court.

It will be very interesting to see whether this new law will have any deterrent effect on Web Access Suit plaintiffs and their lawyers, or whether any defendants in Web Access Suits will use it as a counteroffensive measure.  Defendants may hesitate to pursue claims under this statute, given the added legal costs and the prospect of litigating on two separate fronts.  The Missouri Attorney General has far greater resources and could make a meaningful impact by pursuing actions against plaintiffs and their attorneys under this law.    

Kansas enacted a similar abusive website litigation law in 2023 and we have not been able to find any lawsuits filed under it.  That is not surprising, however, given Kansas’ minimal ADA Title III website lawsuit activity, even before the Kansas law was passed.  We shall see how it goes in Missouri. 

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

Screenshot 2026-04-20 162450
Laptop with "EXTENDED" lettering

By: Chris Palamountain

Seyfarth Synopsis: DOJ issues Interim Rule extending Title II ADA web accessibility compliance deadlines by one year.

The DOJ finally answered the question on everyone’s minds: is it going to take action on the Title II website regulations, and if so, what? We now – 4 days before the compliance deadline – have an answer. Today, April 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an Interim Final Rule extending for approximately a year the compliance deadlines for state and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The compliance deadline for governmental entities servicing populations of 50,000 is extended from April 24, 2026 to April 26, 2027. Smaller governmental entities serving fewer than 50,000 people and special district governments’ compliance deadline is extended from April 26, 2027 to April 26, 2028.

Background: How Did We Get Here?

After over 10 years (since 2010) of fits and starts through different presidential administrations work to develop web accessibility rules under Title II (and Title III, now paused indefinitely), the DOJ published a final rule on April 24, 2024 adopting the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) version 2.1 Level AA (which was originally published in June 2018), as the technical standard for web content and mobile app accessibility applicable to governmental entities under Title II. As we noted in 2025, under the new administration DOJ announced it would review the economic impact of these regulations, which we expected at a minimum might delay the compliance deadlines.

Why Did DOJ Extend the Deadlines?

In the Interim Rule, the DOJ acknowledged it overestimated both technological readiness and institutional capacity of the governmental entities subject to the Rule when setting the original deadlines. The Rule lists several systemic challenges the DOJ identified:

(1) Concerning technology limits, automated tools cannot reliably remediate web content—particularly complex educational and STEM materials—without human review.

(2) Resource constraints facing governmental entities. Many public entities, particularly educational institutions, lack sufficient staffing, specialized expertise, and budget to ensure compliance.

(3) The “significant litigation risks” facing public entities that were unable to meet the prior deadlines, noting in particular the risk of private enforcement actions.

(4) Finally, and somewhat ironically, the DOJ noted that it created legal uncertainty surrounding WCAG guidance when it incorporated hyperlinks in the 2024 final rule.  The DOJ noted that the website at that hyperlink that was part of the April 2024 final rule was a “dynamically changeable” resource, meaning that the website to which individuals were directed had not only a description of WCAG version 2.1, but also of more recent versions of WCAG and multiple descriptions of criteria, which created compliance ambiguity about what standard it was adopting, and potentially would violate the Administrative Procedure Act and affected entities’ right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Impact: What Does This Mean For Governmental Entities and Their Contractors?

While the DOJ’s extension of these compliance deadlines for government websites and apps provides needed breathing room, it does not suspend existing ADA obligations and does not eliminate litigation risk for inaccessible digital content during the extension period – as enforcement actions have happened even absent specific website regulations under effective communication obligations of the ADA. Moreover, the substantive requirements remain unchanged: covered websites and mobile applications ultimately must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by these new deadlines – they just get a year reprieve before being specifically regulatorily-required to do it. The DOJ cautions that it “fully anticipates implementing the regulation at the new deadline.” This could be taken as a warning that, although it has delayed the date for website accessibility compliance to assist governmental entities at this point, the DOJ might be prepared to launch enforcement actions when the compliance deadlines take effect in April 2027 and April 2028.

The DOJ’s extension offers welcome relief—but not immunity. The regulatory clock has been reset, not stopped. State and local governments that use the additional time to meaningfully advance accessibility will be best positioned to manage risk of litigation and enforcement actions and meet their obligations when the extended deadlines arrive. The Interim Rule won’t become final until after a 60-day comment window which closes June 19, 2026.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

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