New lawsuits under California’s Unruh Act may face hurdles in light of a recent California Court of Appeals ruling, which requires a bona fide interest to use the website that is the subject matter of the lawsuit. In the matter of Thurston v. Omni Hotels Management Corp., the California Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs asserting claims that websites are inaccessible under the Unruh Act must show that they have a bona fide interest to procure the goods or services offered at the website.
Thurston sued Omni Hotels claiming that their website was not coded correctly to fully allow access for a blind person using screen reader text-to-speech programs, in violation of CA’s Unruh and the ADA. Thurston went to Omni’s website to make a hotel reservation/obtain info about prices and accommodations, and encountered impediments caused by the website’s poor coding for screen reader programs. However, at no point did Thurston attempt to contact Omni via e-mail or phone (both of which she was able to access) or attempt to use a third-party service like Expedia. She never actually made any reservation with Omni before initiating the suit. The jury was instructed to prove “that Ms. Thurston attempted to use Omni’s website for the purpose of making a hotel reservation (or to ascertain Omni’s prices and accommodations for the purpose of considering whether to make a hotel reservation)”. The jury was unconvinced by Thurston, and a judgment was entered in favor of Omni. Thurston appealed, contending that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that her claim requires a finding that she “intended” to book a reservation.
The Appeals Court found that for purposes of standing, the Unruh Act requires the plaintiff to allege that they visited the business’s website with intent to make use of the business’s service and encountered discriminatory impediments, even if they then leave the website without entering into an agreement with the business. But beyond the pleading stage, a plaintiff must actually “present sufficient evidence to overcome the online defendant’s argument that he or she ‘did not actually possess a bona fide intent to sign up for or use its service.'” The court relied on previous CA Supreme Court rulings on website-based Unruh/ADA claims. Thurston was represented by Pacific Trial Attorneys, a firm that commonly represents plaintiffs who allege that they have visited websites that were inaccessible.
If you are facing a website accessibility claim either under the Unruh Act or the ADA, contact the attorneys at Revision Legal today for a review of your case.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act: What It Requires
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at California Civil Code § 51, prohibits all business establishments operating in California from engaging in any discrimination, distinction, or restriction based on a protected characteristic — including disability. Unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Act provides a private right of action directly to any person who is denied equal access to a business’s goods or services. Statutory damages under the Unruh Act are set at $4,000 per violation, plus attorneys’ fees. Because each inaccessible page visit can be treated as a separate violation, and because attorneys’ fees are mandatory rather than discretionary, even a single website accessibility complaint can generate substantial financial exposure for a business.
The Unruh Act is linked to the ADA through California Civil Code § 51(f), which provides that a violation of the ADA automatically constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. This means that any business whose website fails to meet ADA accessibility standards — typically measured against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 at the Level AA standard — faces simultaneous federal and state liability in California.
The ADA and Website Accessibility: What the Law Requires
The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, prohibits discrimination by any “place of public accommodation” against individuals with disabilities. Courts and the Department of Justice have increasingly held that commercial websites are places of public accommodation subject to the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The DOJ formally proposed regulations in 2023 specifying that WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the applicable accessibility standard for state and local government websites and, in a separate rulemaking, for commercial places of public accommodation. Among the key requirements under WCAG 2.1 AA that are commonly at issue in litigation:
- All non-text content, including images and buttons, must have text alternatives that screen reader software can read aloud
- All functionality must be operable through a keyboard alone, without requiring a mouse
- Form fields must have visible labels that are programmatically associated with the input field so screen readers can identify them
- Error messages must be clearly identified and described in text so users relying on screen readers understand what correction is needed
- Color contrast ratios must meet minimum thresholds to support users with low vision or color blindness
The Serial Litigant Problem and How Courts Are Responding
A substantial portion of ADA website accessibility lawsuits — and virtually all Unruh Act website cases — are filed by a small number of repeat plaintiffs represented by a handful of plaintiff-side firms. The pattern is well-documented: a plaintiff or investigator runs automated accessibility scanning tools against hundreds or thousands of websites, identifies technical violations, and files dozens or hundreds of demand letters and lawsuits against businesses that may have had no idea their websites were inaccessible and no opportunity to remediate before suit was filed.
The Thurston v. Omni decision reflects a judicial response to this pattern. By requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a genuine intent to use the business’s services — not merely to scan a website for technical violations — California courts are beginning to distinguish good-faith accessibility advocates from professional litigants who have no genuine interest in purchasing what the defendant sells. Similar standing challenges have gained traction in federal ADA cases, where courts have applied the requirement that the plaintiff have a concrete plan to return to the business and encounter the accessibility barrier again in order to establish standing for injunctive relief.
How Businesses Can Protect Themselves
The most effective protection against website accessibility claims is proactive remediation. Businesses should conduct a professional accessibility audit of their website against WCAG 2.1 Level AA and remediate identified issues before they become the subject of litigation. An accessibility audit identifies the specific technical issues that are most commonly at issue in litigation — missing alt text, keyboard navigation failures, form label deficiencies — and provides a remediation roadmap that, if followed, eliminates the factual basis for most claims.
Businesses that have already received demand letters or complaints should consult with experienced ADA defense counsel before responding. The statutory structure of Unruh Act claims — with mandatory $4,000 per-violation damages and attorneys’ fees — creates strong economic pressure to settle quickly, but swift settlement without remediation invites repeated claims from other plaintiffs who will identify the same violations.
Contact Revision Legal
Revision Legal defends businesses against ADA and Unruh Act website accessibility claims and advises clients on proactive compliance programs. If you have received a demand letter or are facing a website accessibility lawsuit, contact us today for a case evaluation.
