Search results for: web accessibility lawsuits 2025

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

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. 

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.

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

Seyfarth Synopsis: Mid-year federal lawsuit counts show a continued rebound trend from 2023’s low.

Since we started tracking ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal courts at the mid-point of the year in 2017, we’ve seen ebbs and flows of activity in the first six months of each year.  In 2021 we saw the high water mark, with 6,304 cases filed.  Only two years later, in 2023, cases were at their lowest, with only 4,081 filings.  Last year, the numbers rebounded a little, and this year, that tide continues to rise.

In 2024, 4,280 ADA Title III cases were filed in federal courts between January and June.  In 2025, that number climbed to 4,575.  That’s a 7% increase year-over-year.  Nothing like the 33% increase between 2020 and 2021, but not a downturn either.  If the filing numbers remain steady for the rest of the year, 2025 will see approximately 9,100 cases which would represent a 3.4% increase over 2024 when there were 8,800 federal ADA Title III case filings.

[Mid-Year ADA Title III Federal Lawsuit Filings 2017-2025; 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]

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

[2025 Mid-Year Federal ADA Title III Filings for Top 10 States: CO/GA/MN: 34; IN: 48; NJ: 62; MN: 94; MO: 101; TX: 116; IL: 270; NY: 837; FL: 989; CA: 1,735]

California had by far the highest number of filings, with 1,735.  Florida follows with 989, and New York, with 837.  Although Florida overtook New York in the second position, the real surprise is in fourth place: Illinois moved up from sixth last year.  Texas is in fifth place, with 116 cases filed.  Rounding out the top 10 are: Missouri (101), Minnesota (94), New Jersey (62), Indiana (48) and a 3-way tie for 10th: Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin – all with 34 filings each.

Illinois is the big surprise this year – and likely took some of New York’s market share, as we’ve seen some New York law firms that used to file significant numbers of cases in New York now filing in Illinois.  This may be due to judges in New York becoming increasingly frustrated with website accessibility lawsuits, and looking at the cases more critically.  The increasing number is also a bit surprising given that we’ve seen and predicted that plaintiffs’ attorneys will focus more on filing in state courts. We do not track state court filing numbers due to lack of a reliable system to pull that data, but anecdotally have seen that trend.

Check back with us in early 2026 when we’ll have final numbers for the entire year.

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.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and glasses.
Image of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) book.

By: Minh N. Vu and John W. Egan

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Energy recently issued a fast-track proposed rule that would eliminate accessibility standards for facilities of recipients of federal funding under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Are the ADA Title III regulations next?

On May 16, 2026, the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) published a Notice of a Direct Final Rule entitled, “Rescinding New Construction Requirements Related to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities.”  Through this Notice, the DOE announced its intention to eliminate 10 C.F.R. § 1040.73, a federal regulation that requires recipients of federal financial assistance (“Recipients”) to design and construct new and altered facilities in compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (“UFAS”).  UFAS contains detailed accessibility design standards, much like the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (“2010 Standards”) which apply to public accommodations and commercial facilities.

DOE’s stated rationale is that the regulation to be rescinded is “unnecessary and unduly burdensome” because there is already a “general prohibition on discriminatory activities and related penalties” in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations. The Notice further states that it is “DOE’s policy to give private entities flexibility to comply with the law in the manner they deem most efficient” and “one-size-fits-all rules are rarely the best option.”  The Notice indicates that the recission is consistent with Trump Administration policies and directives outlined in Executive Order 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”), Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”), and the Presidential Memorandum entitled, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.”      

Under the expedited Direct Final Rule process which is typically reserved for non-controversial regulatory actions, this proposed rule will be become final and effective on July 16, 2025 unless “significant adverse comments” were received by June 16, 2025.  If significant adverse comments were received, then the recission must go through full notice and comment rulemaking.  Over 20,000 comments have been submitted to the DOE in response to the Notice which would certainly suggest that there are significant adverse comments, but the website is not allowing visitors to view any of the comments.

Based on our practical experience in counseling clients on how to comply with the ADA’s accessibility requirements for facilities set forth in the 2010 Standards, we believe eliminating UFAS as a legal standard will actually be harmful for Recipients for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following:  

  • Less Accessible Facilities and More Litigation Risk.  Design and construction professionals engaged by Recipients would be without guidance on how to construct facilities in an accessible manner as required by Section 504’s non-discrimination mandate. This will likely result in more facilities that are not useable to people with disabilities which, in turn, will create additional liability for Recipients.  Recipients will likely have to spend more money to make reasonable accommodations and physical modifications for employees with disabilities, and will face more lawsuits brought by members of the public with disabilities who are unable to access Recipients’ programs and services.
  • Less Accountability for Design and Construction Professionals.  Without an objective, enforceable standard for accessible design, Recipients will have difficulty holding design and construction professionals accountable for constructing and renovating facilities that are not accessible.
  • Eliminating a Safe Harbor for Lawsuits.  Presently, a Recipient that is sued for having an allegedly inaccessible facility can prevail by demonstrating that its facility complies with UFAS, even if that compliance still presents barriers for the specific plaintiff who brought suit.  UFAS is, in essence, a safe harbor for Recipients.  Without any accessibility design standard, Recipients will likely spend more money and resources litigating the issue of whether a property element or condition is accessible to people with disabilities generally — or worse, whether an element or condition was accessible to a specific, individual plaintiff.  

UFAS has been an enforceable standard for decades.  Like the ADA Standards, it is the product of a well-established process in which committees consisting of advocates, representatives of covered businesses and organizations, and government representatives meet, evaluate, and reach consensus.  The purpose of this system is to facilitate the development of technical design standards that balance considerations of cost and impact on covered entities with the accessibility needs of a diverse population of individuals with varying ability levels. These enforceable standards establish clear rules which businesses can use to plan, design, and price their projects.

In sum, while the idea of dispensing with hundreds of very specific design requirements may seem appealing at first blush to those who favor deregulation, the void it would leave will actually result in chaos and risk for Recipients – while producing a less accessible built environment for people with disabilities.  Courts will step in to fill the void, most likely with conflicting directives as we have seen in the digital accessibility arena where there is no legally enforceable accessibility standard for public accommodations.

Update:

On July 14, 2025, DOE issued a notice stating that

“Because DOE …received significant adverse comments on that direct final rule, DOE is extending the effective date to consider comments submitted in response to the direct final rule.”  While this is a temporary reprieve for the disability rights community, the DOE may still adopt the proposed rule with no further revisions.  The DOE went out of its way to say that “[t]o the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for which no notice or hearing is required by statute.”  The DOE continues to maintain that its proposed action to rescind all accessibility design standards under Section 504 for its Recipients is “not a ‘substantive rule’ for which a 30-day delay in effective date is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).” 

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey

judge-7602999_1280
Cartoon of a judge with a gavel in a courtroom.

By: John W. Egan and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Two recent New York district court decisions underscore how serial website accessibility plaintiffs are encountering greater challenges to demonstrate their standing to pursue ADA claims in federal court.

SDNY Judge Orders Jurisdictional Discovery

In Fernandez v. Buffalo Jackson Trading Co., LLC, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery to be followed by an evidentiary hearing in connection with its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.  The hearing is set for May 28.

“Article III standing is not merely a pleading hurdle,” the Court observed in its decision, but instead “a core constitutional guardrail meant to ensure that federal courts decide only the rights of individuals, and that the federal courts exercise their proper function in a limited and separated government.” The Court further opined that “Article III does not permit plaintiffs to roam the country in search of … wrongdoing and to reveal their discoveries in federal court absent a genuine, personal stake in the outcome of the case.”

There were a number of factors that led the Court to question the “sincerity” of plaintiff’s allegations that he suffered an “injury in fact” while browsing the website and intended to return to the website at issue to make a purchase. 

First, the plaintiff filed dozens of “cookie-cutter, fill-in-the-blanks” complaints where he alleged that he went to a website to purchase some product, described a desire or need for the product, summarized some combination of features on the website that prevented his purchase, and asserted that he would return to make the purchase once the issue was corrected.  The Court also observed that the plaintiff’s firm used the same template pleading in cases filed by eight other plaintiffs.

Second, according to his numerous lawsuits, plaintiff allegedly attempted to purchase 40 products from dozens of websites in a single week.  The Court noted that these included the “Thompson leather moto jacket” at issue in the case, an “African Serpentine Necklace”, a “Bisonette Buffalo Leather Purse”, a “Synthetic Filled Puffy Comforter” and a “ProForce Combination Fist/Forearm Guard” from an online martial arts store, among many others.

Third, the Court noted inconsistences within the amended complaint itself.  The document alleged that the plaintiff wanted to buy the leather jacket in question because of its craftsmanship, functionality, and durability, along with the 10 percent discount offered for a first purchase.  The Court found it odd that the plaintiff was able to gather this information while claiming that the website was largely inaccessible in the first instance.

The Court was careful to note that the basis for its ruling was not whether the plaintiff could serve as a “tester” per se, as such litigants may have standing, but rather because the above issues warranted a more searching jurisdictional inquiry.  Accordingly, the Court declined to dismiss the action based on standing, but instead ordered limited discovery.  It suggested that plaintiff’s deposition and a forensic examination of the device or devices he used to access the website would be appropriate.  If plaintiff does not dismiss the case before then, we will report on the May 28 hearing.  

EDNY Judge Dismisses Website Case Based on Standing Sue Sponte

The day after the Buffalo Jackson Trading ruling, Eastern District of New York Judge Natasha Merle issued another defendant-friendly dismissal based on lack of standing. In Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that he visited the website advertising Chinese restaurant locations because he enjoyed this type of cuisine, wanted to visit one of defendant’s locations “immediately” based on the recommendation of a friend, and often visits the neighborhoods where the restaurants are located.  

The restaurant owner moved to dismiss based on mootness.  The defendant argued it engaged a third-party vendor to remediate the barriers and thus there was no injunctive relief for the Court to award.

Rather than dismiss based on mootness, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to create a plausible inference that the plaintiff intended to return to the website, as required for a plaintiff to have standing to pursue an ADA Title III lawsuit. 

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to allege why the website barriers prevented or impeded him from visiting a restaurant location.  The Court also questioned plaintiff’s alleged desire to try food options “immediately” since, as alleged, the plaintiff often frequented neighborhoods where the restaurants were located, but never actually visited any to try the food.  It was also curious to the Court that the plaintiff did not attempt to find the menu or location information through any alternative means (other than attempting to access the defendant’s website) given the professed urgency.  Additionally, the Court pointed out that there are countless options for dumplings and unique dining experiences in New York City (both reasons cited by plaintiff to support plaintiff’s interest in the defendant’s business), but the amended complaint contained no explanation as to why there were no other options with these offerings.  Finally, though not cited as a factor in the standing analysis, the Court did mention in a footnote that the plaintiff had filed 27 lawsuits in the previous year.

Finding that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts establishing an intent to return to the website, the Court dismissed the Complaint.  The Court did so without granting leave to amend. 

***

The upshot of these decisions (and others on which we have reported) is that federal courts in New York City — after being barraged for a number of years with thousands of ADA website cases — are demanding more from serial plaintiffs to establish standing to sue.  This may be the reason why several plaintiff-side firms in New York have shifted most, if not all of their website accessibility lawsuits to New York State courts, where the standing requirements are less rigorous.  As we recently reported, the number of federal court filings in New York have decreased by almost a third since 2022, and the number of website accessibility lawsuits filed in New York federal court decreased by 39 percent.

Edited by: Kristina M. Launey  

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