ADA WEBSITE LAWSUITS SKYROCKETING

By Catherine M. Corfee, Corfee Stone Law Corp

California business are facing a growing threat of website accessibility litigation. Small businesses that have created a website to promote their goods and services at their physical locations may find themselves defending an ADA access lawsuit alleging that their website is inaccessible to blind or visually impaired individuals. The good news is that businesses can take meaningful steps to identify and address ADA accessibility barriers in their website before litigation begins. If you own a business with a physical building such as a restaurant, and have a website, then your website is an easy target for an ADA lawsuit. If, however, your business is strictly online, then the ADA does not apply. This is because the ADA only applies to a “place of public accommodation.”

There is no ADA statute that addresses websites, however, our liberal Courts have interpreted a website as a “place of accommodation” if it has a connection to the building where the goods and/or services are available. For example, a patron my be able to order food from the website for pick up. Many Court decisions have opened a can of worms with no regulatory guidelines issued by the Department of Justice. Zero! The Courts borrow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and the federal government’s section 508 standards applicable to government websites not private websites. The Courts have literally created the sudden burst of ADA website lawsuits where no express law or regulation exits to govern such.

The confusion of how the Courts interpret a private website as a place of public accommodation is so convoluted that it is a sleeping dog for many businesses which are unaware of these risks. The plaintiffs’ attorneys take advantage of this subtilty.

Website Accessibility Lawsuits Are Increasing

Website accessibility litigation has become an important area of ADA enforcement in California. A litigation-tracking report published in October 2026 identified 124 website accessibility lawsuits attributed to California during the preceding 12 months. Common plaintiffs who repeatedly file ADA lawsuits over websites include but are not limited to Jesus Torres, Luis Licea, Dominik Martin, Perla Mageno, Cheryl Thurston and Drew Hunthausen. Unfortunately, these litigious plaintiffs can keep suing as the Courts do not always consider their past litigation history as an intent to sue, not enjoy the goods and/or services. Suing businesses to make money is an abuse of the judicial system. Since only the rich can generally defend themselves, many businesses have to pay the ransom in settlement.

The Court’s sympathy for the disabled is an unfair bias against hard working businesses just trying to stay afloat in California.

Of course, sincere visually impaired individuals who intend to use the goods and services must be protected and are entitled to access. The problem is with the repeat litigants looking for money. Blind or visually impaired plaintiffs like Jesus Torres, Luis Licea, Dominik Martin, Perla Mageno, Cheryl Thurston and Drew Hunthausen often allege the following:

Images that lack alternative text that screen-reading software can interpret.

• Online forms that are not properly labeled.
• Navigation menus that cannot be operated using a keyboard.
• Buttons, links, or checkout functions that are not accessible to screen readers.
• Poor heading structure that makes website content difficult to navigate.
• Images of text, inaccessible pop-ups, or other barriers that interfere with independent use.
• A third party application that is not accessible because it is operated by a third party. Be sure it is ADA compliant, like a third party app for ordering food, such as Toast, or Flipdish. You have to work with the third party app to ensure it is accessible.

Why an Accessibility Plug-In or Automated Scan May Not Be Enough

One of the most common misconceptions among business owners is that purchasing an accessibility plug-in. Someone must manually review your website and apply the WCAG! Though automated testing tools can be useful, it generally is not enough. Installing a plug-in is not a substitute for a thorough accessibility evaluation. For example, an automated tool may identify that an image has alternative text without determining whether that text accurately describes the image. A scan may detect the presence of a button without establishing whether a screen reader properly identifies its purpose or whether a keyboard user can operate it. The absence of errors in an automated report should not be confused with proof of accessibility or legal compliance.

Why Manual Testing Matters

A meaningful accessibility evaluation should include manual examination and, where appropriate, testing with assistive technologies. Depending on the website, an evaluation may include:

• Testing navigation using only a keyboard.
• Reviewing screen-reader announcements and reading order.
• Examining headings, labels, links, buttons, and form instructions.
• Testing menus, pop-ups, appointment systems, shopping carts, and checkout processes.
• Reviewing alternative text and other content that automated tools cannot adequately assess.
• Evaluating whether identified barriers can be corrected and verifying the corrections afterward.

Businesses should retain documentation of the evaluation, the identified barriers, the remediation work performed, and subsequent testing. It should also keep copies of the prior website to prove ADA access changes were made.

What Should a Small Business Do Now?

Businesses should take proactive steps rather than wait until a demand letter arrives.

1. Obtain a meaningful accessibility assessment. Use automated tools as one part of the process, not as the entire evaluation.

2. Arrange manual review. Have a qualified accessibility professional evaluate the website’s actual operation, including relevant screen-reader and keyboard interactions.

3. Address identified barriers. Work with the website developer or another qualified professional to correct issues and verify the results.

4. Review third-party tools and content. Booking systems, payment platforms, embedded forms, videos, and other third-party components may introduce accessibility barriers.

5. Keep records. Preserve reports, remediation records, testing results, and dates of corrective work.

6. Reassess the website periodically. Websites change as new pages, images, plug-ins, and features are added. Accessibility should be treated as an ongoing process.

7. Obtain legal advice when necessary. If a business receives an accessibility demand letter or lawsuit, it should promptly consult counsel familiar with ADA and California Unruh Act litigation.

Proactive evaluation is generally a better business strategy than waiting until accessibility allegations become a legal dispute.

Corfee Stone Law Corporation, via Ms. Catherine M. Corfee, has defended many businesses against these website lawsuits. She provides an initial consultation for 15 minutes without charge. Ms. Corfee may be contacted at corfee.catherine@gmail.com.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not expressly or impliedly legal advice and should not be relied upon for such. The applicability of accessibility laws depends on the particular facts and current law.