Research & Data

Accessibility Lawsuit Tracker 2026

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 series through 2025

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.

2026 legal and regulatory snapshot

Status as re-checked on August 27, 2026. Deadline extensions do not erase underlying accessibility obligations.
  • 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. The comment period closed July 6, 2026. 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; as of August 27, 2026 no final rule has issued and 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. As of August 27, 2026 Seyfarth has not published a comparable mid-year federal count for 2026, so this tracker does not present a 2026 filing projection as an observed count.

  • UsableNet projects roughly 6,000+ combined filings for 2026

    UsableNet's mid-year 2026 report, based on combined federal and state filings recorded through June 14, projects approximately 6,176 lawsuits for 2026, with about 79% of cases against e-commerce companies and roughly 20% of sued companies running an accessibility widget or overlay. This is a projection from a combined dataset, not an observed federal count, and it is not comparable to the Seyfarth series above.

  • 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.

Lawsuits by industry

Industry share reported for 2025 digital accessibility litigation. This is a broader industry dataset, not the federal-only series above.
E-Commerce & Retail70%
Food & Beverage21%
Healthcare2.5%
Entertainment2%
Travel & Hospitality1.5%
Banking & Finance1.2%
Education0.8%
Real Estate0.5%
Other0.5%

Source: UsableNet 2025 year-end report

Reported settlement and legal-cost benchmarks

Illustrative ranges from published settlements and legal-industry reporting. These figures are not a quote, prediction, or substitute for legal advice.

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

2025 federal filings by state

States reported in Seyfarth Shaw's federal-court review. State-court matters are not included.

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

Key legal developments

Court decisions, regulations, enforcement, and settlements are labeled by type rather than reduced to misleading win-or-loss badges.
Court decision
Merrell v. Ralph Lauren: Nationwide ADA Injunctive Class CertifiedU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (No. 4:23-cv-06669)

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted class certification in part, certifying a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class of blind and low-vision users over the accessibility of ralphlauren.com, reasoning that a single injunction ordering the site into ADA compliance would provide relief to every class member. A California Unruh Act damages class was denied. Per the docket, the parties stipulated to private ADR in August 2026.

Why it matters: One of the first nationwide injunctive classes certified in a website accessibility case. Class treatment raises the stakes well beyond the single-plaintiff, quick-settlement pattern that dominates these filings.

Review source
Litigation
NFB challenges DOJ and HHS deadline extensionsU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

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. As of August 27, 2026 the case remains pending with no reported ruling.

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.

Review source
Regulation
DOJ Interim Final Rule Extends Title II Web ComplianceDepartment of Justice

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

Review source
Settlement
Alcazar v. Fashion Nova — $5.15M Proposed Class SettlementU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (No. 4:20-cv-01434)

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. The DOJ filed a statement of interest opposing the deal in February 2026, and after a March 30, 2026 evidentiary hearing the matter remains under review, with no final approval reported as of August 27, 2026.

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.

Review source
Regulation
European Accessibility Act Enforcement BeginsEU Member States

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

Review source
Enforcement
FTC v. Accessibility Overlay ProviderFederal Trade Commission

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

Review source
Court decision
Loper Bright v. RaimondoSupreme Court

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

Court decision
Gil v. Winn-Dixie11th Circuit (Vacated)

A panel held Winn-Dixie's website was not a place of public accommodation, then the court vacated that opinion as moot on December 28, 2021

Why it matters: Because the opinion was vacated it binds no one; the 11th Circuit has no controlling website-accessibility holding

Court decision
Domino's Pizza v. RoblesSupreme Court (Cert Denied)

Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal, letting stand the 9th Circuit ruling that the ADA applies to its website and app

Why it matters: A denial of certiorari sets no precedent of its own; it left the 9th Circuit nexus holding in force

Court decision
Robles v. Domino's Pizza9th Circuit

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

What organizations should do with this data

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.

  • Test complete user journeys with keyboard and screen readers, not only the homepage.
  • Combine automated checks with expert manual review and documented retesting.
  • Publish an accessibility statement and maintain a responsive feedback channel.
  • Ask qualified counsel to interpret legal exposure for your jurisdictions and facts.

Share & Embed

Share this research page or embed a linked reference on your website. The canonical URL remains unchanged.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many accessibility lawsuits are filed each year?

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.

Which industries are most targeted by accessibility lawsuits?

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%).

How much does an accessibility lawsuit cost to settle?

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.

Does the ADA apply to websites?

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.

Which states have the most accessibility lawsuits?

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.

How can businesses reduce accessibility barriers and litigation risk?

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.

Do accessibility overlay widgets protect against lawsuits?

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.

How is AI changing accessibility litigation in 2026?

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.

Go Deeper

Get the data

Every number on this page is available as CSV and JSON under a CC BY 4.0 licence. Cite Accessibility.build and the underlying sources (Seyfarth Shaw; UsableNet; AudioEye; court records). Last updated .

Whole dataset (JSON)

Essential Accessibility Resources

Comprehensive tools, checklists, and guides to help you create inclusive digital experiences

Top Pick

How AI Is Fueling ADA Website Lawsuits in 2026

How generative AI and automated scanners collapsed the cost of filing a web accessibility lawsuit: the pro se surge, repeat defendants, and how to protect your site
ai accessibility lawsuits
ada lawsuits
litigation
+1 more
View guide
Top Pick

How to Audit Website Accessibility

Step-by-step accessibility audit methodology
accessibility audit
how to audit
wcag audit
View guide
Top Pick

AI Accessibility Audit Helper

Expert WCAG analysis and accessibility guidance with AI
accessibility
audit
wcag
+1 more
View tool