Loading...
Research & Data
A source-linked view of U.S. website-accessibility litigation, built around a consistent federal-court series through 2025. Compare annual filings, industries, reported costs, states, and legal developments without mixing incompatible datasets.
Federal filings, 2018-2025
21,550
Identified website-accessibility cases
2025 federal filings
3,117
Observed full-year count
Year-over-year change
+27.1%
2025 compared with 2024
Leading federal venue
1,021
New York filings in 2025
Headline figures use Seyfarth Shaw's manually reviewed federal-court series. See the methodology and limitations before comparing them with broader state-court reports.
Source: Seyfarth Shaw ADA Title III
HHS Section 504 deadline extended to May 11, 2027
HHS extended the first Section 504 web and mobile-app compliance deadline by one year. Covered recipients with 15 or more employees now have until May 11, 2027. A May 2026 federal lawsuit challenges that extension, so covered organizations should track the rulemaking and litigation rather than treating the new date as settled indefinitely.
DOJ Title II compliance — EXTENDED to 2027/2028
On April 20, 2026 the DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule pushing Phase 1 (entities ≥50,000 pop.) from April 24, 2026 to April 26, 2027, and Phase 2 (smaller entities, special districts) to April 26, 2028. WCAG 2.1 Level AA remains the standard. The public comment window closed June 19, 2026; the extension does not pause private Title III litigation.
2025 federal filings closed at 3,117
Seyfarth Shaw identified 3,117 federal website-accessibility lawsuits in 2025, 27% more than in 2024. A comparable full-year federal total for 2026 is not yet available, so this tracker does not present a 2026 filing projection as an observed count.
Federal and state datasets are not interchangeable
Industry reports use different search terms, court databases, date windows, and definitions of a filing. Federal-only counts should not be added to broader state-court datasets unless the source confirms that the scopes and deduplication rules align.
Source: UsableNet 2025 year-end report
Demand Letter Settlement
Avg $5KMedian $4K
$1K$25K
Out-of-Court Settlement
Avg $30KMedian $18K
$5K$150K
Court Judgment
Avg $85KMedian $55K
$10K$500K
Class Action Settlement
Avg $400KMedian $225K
$50K$6.0M
Legal Defense (No Damages)
Avg $30KMedian $18K
$5K$125K
Private settlements are often confidential, and remediation, monitoring, claimant payments, and defense fees may be reported separately. Treat these as directional benchmarks only.
Source: Published court records and litigation reports
NYNew York
1,021
Federal filings
5.20 per 100K
FLFlorida
961
Federal filings
4.30 per 100K
ILIllinois
585
Federal filings
4.70 per 100K
MNMinnesota
162
Federal filings
2.80 per 100K
PAPennsylvania
137
Federal filings
1.10 per 100K
MOMissouri
86
Federal filings
1.40 per 100K
MAMassachusetts
57
Federal filings
0.80 per 100K
WIWisconsin
47
Federal filings
0.80 per 100K
INIndiana
34
Federal filings
0.50 per 100K
NJNew Jersey
22
Federal filings
0.20 per 100K
CACalifornia
4
Federal filings
0.01 per 100K
| 1 | NY New York | 1,021 | 5.20 |
| 2 | FL Florida | 961 | 4.30 |
| 3 | IL Illinois | 585 | 4.70 |
| 4 | MN Minnesota | 162 | 2.80 |
| 5 | PA Pennsylvania | 137 | 1.10 |
| 6 | MO Missouri | 86 | 1.40 |
| 7 | MA Massachusetts | 57 | 0.80 |
| 8 | WI Wisconsin | 47 | 0.80 |
| 9 | IN Indiana | 34 | 0.50 |
| 10 | NJ New Jersey | 22 | 0.20 |
| 11 | CA California | 4 | 0.01 |
The National Federation of the Blind filed suit challenging the interim final rules that extended the first DOJ Title II and HHS Section 504 web-accessibility deadlines by one year. The complaint asks the court to set the extensions aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Why it matters: The operative dates are extended, but the litigation means covered organizations should monitor the case and continue remediation rather than treating the delay as a permanent change.
The DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule extending the Title II web/mobile compliance deadlines by one year. State and local governments serving 50,000 or more residents now have until April 26, 2027; smaller entities and special districts have until April 26, 2028. WCAG 2.1 AA remains the technical standard.
Why it matters: Removes the immediate enforcement cliff for public entities, but private-sector courts continue to cite the underlying rule as persuasive authority on what 'accessible' means under Title III
Fashion Nova agreed to a proposed $5.15 million class settlement concerning claims that its website was inaccessible to blind shoppers using screen readers. The proposal includes injunctive relief and potential payments of up to $4,000 for eligible California class members. Fashion Nova denies wrongdoing, and the agreement is not an admission of liability.
Why it matters: The proposed amount is one of the largest publicly reported resolutions involving website accessibility. Because court approval has been contested, it should be described as a proposed settlement rather than a final judgment or paid award.
The European Accessibility Act (EAA) compliance deadline of June 28, 2025 took effect, requiring e-commerce, banking, transport, and digital products serving EU consumers to meet EN 301 549 (which incorporates WCAG 2.1 AA). U.S. companies with EU customers now face dual U.S./EU exposure
Why it matters: Expanded global accessibility liability for U.S. firms and increased the business case for proactive WCAG conformance
FTC reached a $1 million settlement with a prominent accessibility overlay provider for misleading businesses about what their widget could actually do for compliance
Why it matters: Undermines the overlay-as-compliance defense and validates lawsuit claims against widget-reliant sites
Overturned Chevron deference, potentially affecting how courts interpret ADA digital requirements without explicit agency rulemaking
Why it matters: May require Congress to explicitly address website accessibility in legislation
Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal, letting stand the 9th Circuit ruling that the ADA applies to websites
Why it matters: Established precedent that websites connected to physical locations must be accessible
Reversed lower court ruling, holding that Winn-Dixie's website was not a place of public accommodation under ADA Title III
Why it matters: Created circuit split on whether websites are covered by ADA
Ruled that the ADA applies to Domino's website and mobile app
Why it matters: Major precedent affirming web accessibility requirements under ADA
Practical response
Litigation counts describe reported activity, not the accessibility of a specific website. Use them to prioritize an evidence-based program, not to make a promise that any single tool prevents legal claims.
In 2025, plaintiffs filed 3,117 website accessibility lawsuits in U.S. federal court— a 27% jump over 2024's 2,452 cases (Seyfarth Shaw / adatitleiii.com). Federal volume in that source series ranged from 2,256 to 3,255 filings per year between 2018 and 2025. State-court cases and private demand letters are additional activity, but their totals should be cited from the relevant publisher rather than added to the federal series. A comparable full-year 2026 federal count is not yet available on this page.
E-Commerce and Retail businesses are the most targeted industry, accounting for approximately 70% of all 2025 digital accessibility lawsuits. Food and Beverage companies are the second most targeted at 21%, followed by Healthcare (~2.5%), Entertainment (~2%), and Travel and Hospitality (~1.5%).
Settlement costs vary widely. Demand letter settlements typically range from $1,000 to $25,000. Out-of-court settlements average around $30,000 but can reach $150,000. Court judgments average $85,000 and class action settlements can exceed $6 million. In 2025, online retailer Fashion Nova agreed to a proposed $5.15 million class-action settlement in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova. The proposal has faced objections and should not be treated as a final judgment or admission of liability. Even defending a lawsuit with no damages typically costs $5,000 to $125,000 in legal fees.
While the ADA does not explicitly mention websites, multiple federal courts have ruled that websites of businesses open to the public are subject to ADA Title III requirements. The landmark Robles v. Domino's Pizza case in the 9th Circuit established that the ADA applies to websites and mobile apps. A circuit split exists, as the 11th Circuit ruled differently in Gil v. Winn-Dixie. On April 20, 2026, the DOJ issued an Interim Final Rule extending its Title II web/mobile compliance dates by a year — large public entities (population ≥ 50,000) now must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 26, 2027, and smaller entities by April 26, 2028. HHS also extended the first Section 504 web-accessibility deadline for covered funding recipients to May 11, 2027. A federal lawsuit filed in May 2026 challenges the DOJ and HHS extensions. These rules concern Title II and Section 504; they do not create a general safe harbor from private Title III litigation.
In 2025, New York led federal-court filings with 1,021 cases, followed by Florida (961, nearly double its 2024 total of 470), Illinois (585), Minnesota (162), and Pennsylvania (137). California recorded just 4 federal filings in the same review. The source attributes California's low federal count partly to appellate decisions concerning online-only businesses. It also notes that state-court lawsuits and demand letters are outside the federal figures shown here.
No checklist can guarantee that an organization will avoid a claim. A practical response is to work toward WCAG 2.2 Level AA, conduct regular accessibility audits, implement automated and manual testing, train development teams on accessible coding practices, publish an accessibility statement, and establish a process for receiving and addressing accessibility feedback. Organizations should ask qualified counsel to assess their specific legal obligations and jurisdictions.
No product can guarantee that a website is accessible or immune from a lawsuit. Industry reporting continues to identify claims involving sites that had widgets or other accessibility products in place. Automated tools can support a program, but they do not replace code remediation, keyboard and screen-reader testing, accessible design, monitoring, or a process for responding to disabled users' feedback.
AI-assisted drafting and automated scanning can reduce the effort needed to identify recurring barriers and prepare legal documents, but public datasets do not provide a consistent measure of how many filings were created with AI. Organizations should focus on the underlying user barriers and review complete journeys rather than trying to infer a claimant's tools. See our guide on how AI is fueling ADA website lawsuits for the full picture.
ADA Website Compliance
Requirements, deadlines, and lawsuit exposure under Title II and III
California & the Unruh Act
Why California drives statutory-damages lawsuits
New York Lawsuits & Laws
The top federal filing venue, explained
European Accessibility Act
EU requirements now in force for digital services
What a Lawsuit Costs
Demand letters, settlements, and defense fees
Assess Your Risk
Interactive risk assessment with current lawsuit data
WCAG 2.2 Checklist
The standard courts and regulators point to
Professional Audit
Manual and automated review of priority user journeys
Comprehensive tools, checklists, and guides to help you create inclusive digital experiences