Is your website compliant with the federal Americans With Disabilities Act? See 42 U.S.C. § 12101. If you do not know, it is time to seek legal advice and counsel from ADA website compliance lawyers like the ones at Revision Legal. The ADA requires that all “places of accommodation” be accessible to those with disabilities.

There has been a lot of ADA website compliance litigation over the last couple of decades. These cases have generated an ongoing legal debate about whether the ADA applies to websites and to the internet in general. The argument against is that the ADA applies only to physical locations. Under this reasoning, the ADA would not apply to websites because they do not exist in physical space. The argument for is that the ADA is not limited to physical locations.

Many federal courts have avoided making a clear decision by adopting a “hybrid” approach where, under some circumstances, the ADA DOES apply to websites. Under these court decisions, a website must be ADA compliant if two conditions are met:

• The business operating a website also has at least one physical store or location to which customers can go and
• The website is used to “drive traffic” — attract consumers — to the physical location

When these conditions are met, websites must be accessible to the blind, the deaf and others with disabilities. The reasoning is that the website is part of the features and benefits associated with the physical location. As such, the anti-discrimination intent behind the ADA must be applied to the features and benefits connected to the place of accommodation.

Recently, there have been two decisions handed down in ADA website compliance litigation cases involving so-called “pure” website situations. In both cases, the businesses operating websites did not have any physical locations to which customers could go. In both cases, the judges held that the ADA did not apply.

The first case is Winegard v. Newsday, LLC, Case No. 19-CV-04420 (US Dist. Court, ED New York 2021). In that case, the plaintiff was deaf/hard-of-hearing and he sued Newsday for failing to provide visual translations of videos posted on Newsday’s website. The plaintiff alleged violation of the ADA because the Newsday website was not ADA compliant. While Newsday — a media company — offers physical newspapers for sale and operates a website, Newsday has no physical stores or locations to which customers can go to purchase Newsday products. For this reason, the judge ruled that the ADA did not apply to Newsday’s website.

The second ADA website compliance litigation case was Martinez v. MyLife.com, Inc., Case US Dist. Court, ED New York 2021). In that case, the plaintiff was legally blind and attempted to access the defendant’s website. The defendant’s website is aimed at selling products and services related to managing, improving and learning about one’s online reputation. Plaintiff was unable to use the website since it was not coded to allow audio translations for visual materials. The plaintiff alleged violation of the ADA because the MyLife website was not ADA compliant. However, as with Newsday, MyLife operates only online, has no physical stores or other physical locations and the website does not “drive traffic” to any physical location. As such, the judge held that the ADA does not apply.

Contact Revision Legal For more information or if you have been searching for an “ADA compliance attorney near me,” call Revision Legal at 231-714-0100. We are ADA website compliance attorneys with proven experience in ADA compliance litigation. We are lawyers specializing in internet law.

The DOJ’s Definitive Position: Websites Are Covered by Title III

The Department of Justice ended years of regulatory ambiguity in March 2022 when it issued a final rule at 28 C.F.R. Part 36 clarifying that websites and mobile applications are ‘places of public accommodation’ subject to Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. This rule, which took effect in June 2024 with staggered compliance deadlines based on government entity size, adopts WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical accessibility standard. While the DOJ rule primarily covers state and local government entities under Title II, the agency has made clear in guidance documents that it interprets Title III to cover private business websites as well.

The practical effect of this regulatory clarity is that ‘pure’ internet businesses—those with no physical locations—can no longer rely on the line of cases represented by Winegard v. Newsday to argue they are categorically exempt from the ADA. Courts in the Eleventh Circuit and elsewhere had previously held that a physical nexus was required. Post-DOJ guidance, this defense is significantly weaker, and the trend in new litigation is toward finding ADA applicability to websites regardless of physical presence.

The WCAG 2.1 AA Standard: What Compliance Actually Requires

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA is the prevailing technical standard for website accessibility. Compliance requires meeting four core principles: websites must be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. In practical terms, these principles translate to specific requirements:

• Perceivable — All non-text content must have text alternatives (alt text for images); captions must be provided for all prerecorded audio and video content; content must not rely solely on color to convey information
• Operable — All functionality must be accessible via keyboard (for users who cannot use a mouse); users must have sufficient time to read and use content; pages must not contain content that flashes more than three times per second
• Understandable — Text must be readable and understandable; navigation and functionality must operate predictably; users must be helped to avoid and correct mistakes in forms
• Robust — Content must be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents and assistive technologies, including screen readers like JAWS and NVDA

Serial Litigation and the Business Reality of ADA Website Claims

ADA website accessibility litigation has become a significant legal industry. A small number of plaintiffs and law firms file hundreds of lawsuits per year, often targeting businesses with identifiable accessibility failures using automated scanning tools. Under the ADA’s fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, prevailing plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees and costs, creating a financial incentive for litigation regardless of the magnitude of actual harm.

The Southern District of New York, the Northern District of California, and the Northern District of Illinois have handled the largest volume of ADA website cases. Courts in these districts have developed nuanced doctrine on standing, mootness (when businesses remediate their websites during litigation), and the appropriate standard for injunctive relief. Businesses that receive ADA demand letters should not assume that quick remediation moots the claim—courts have held that voluntary cessation does not automatically moot an ADA claim where future violations are likely.

State Law Supplements to Federal ADA Claims

Federal ADA claims are not the only exposure for businesses with inaccessible websites. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, incorporates ADA accessibility requirements by reference and provides for minimum statutory damages of $4,000 per violation—regardless of actual harm. New York State and New York City human rights laws similarly provide broader coverage and additional damages beyond the federal ADA’s injunctive-relief-only remedy.

Businesses operating in these states face cumulative exposure under both federal and state law. A business with an inaccessible website that serves customers in California may face both federal ADA litigation and California Unruh Act claims, with the latter potentially providing substantial statutory damages on a per-violation basis.

Building a Proactive ADA Compliance Program

The most cost-effective response to ADA website exposure is proactive compliance. This means conducting a professional accessibility audit against WCAG 2.1 AA, remediating identified failures, publishing an accessibility statement that commits to ongoing compliance and provides a contact mechanism for users to report accessibility issues, and establishing regular audit cycles to identify new accessibility problems as website content is updated.

Businesses that maintain documented compliance programs and respond promptly to user accessibility complaints are better positioned to defend against litigation and may qualify for the ADA’s ‘readily achievable’ defense in appropriate circumstances. The ADA website compliance attorneys at Revision Legal can help you assess your current exposure, develop a compliance roadmap, and respond to demand letters or litigation. Contact us today.