Accessibility lawsuits

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Caitlin Walsh alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Caitlin Walsh alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Howard Wilson alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Howard Wilson alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Howard Wilson alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Howard Wilson alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

M.D. Florida

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Z'Leah Liburd alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Caitlin Walsh alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Caitlin Walsh alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Caitlin Walsh alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Andre Battle alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

U.S. District Court

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Shaleah Raines and Sylvia Santos alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

N.D. Illinois

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Howard Wilson alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

U.S. District Court

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Lucas Rice and Christopher Walters alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

S.D. Florida

ADA Title III website accessibility complaint filed by Victor Ariza alleging the company's website is not accessible to blind/visually impaired users.

S.D. New York

A blind season-ticket holder sued over the Mavericks' mobile app being unusable with screen readers, highlighting that ADA Title III obligations extend to native mobile apps used by ticket holders.

S.D. New York

Class action alleging Peloton's digital content (app and on-demand classes) lacked captions and screen-reader support for deaf and blind subscribers.

N.D. California

Crawford v. Uber — blind riders alleged the Uber app's wait-time fees and driver cancellations discriminate against disabled passengers using service animals or needing extra time.

S.D. New York

Murphy v. Patreon — class action alleging the Patreon website and mobile app were inaccessible to blind users; settled with accessibility remediation commitments.

S.D. New York

Conner v. Parkwood Entertainment alleged Beyoncé's official site denied blind fans equal access. The high-profile case drew attention to celebrity and entertainment brand accessibility obligations.

U.S. Supreme Court (9th Cir.)

Guillermo Robles, a blind customer, sued because Domino's website and mobile app could not be used with a screen reader. SCOTUS declined to hear Domino's appeal, letting the 9th Circuit ruling stand that the ADA applies to websites and apps connected to physical places of business.

W.D. Washington

Davis v. Eddie Bauer — blind consumer class action settled with Eddie Bauer agreeing to conform its site to WCAG 2.0 AA and provide ongoing testing.

E.D. New York

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials — the court issued an influential opinion that the ADA covers commercial websites regardless of nexus to a physical store.

S.D. New York

Markett v. Five Guys — court rejected the argument that the ADA does not cover websites, allowing the suit to proceed. Eventually settled with accessibility commitments.

C.D. California

Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby — court denied Hobby Lobby's motion to dismiss, rejecting due-process and primary-jurisdiction defenses for inaccessible websites.

S.D. Florida (later 11th Cir.)

Gil v. Winn-Dixie was the first ADA website accessibility case to go to trial. A blind customer won at trial, but the 11th Circuit later vacated, holding websites are not "places of public accommodation" in that circuit.

D. Massachusetts

National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard. Harvard agreed to caption new public-facing video and audio content and to meet WCAG 2.1 AA on its websites.

D. Massachusetts (DOJ consent decree)

DOJ intervened in NFB v. H&R Block. Consent decree required WCAG 2.0 AA conformance for the website, mobile apps, and online tax-prep tool, plus damages and penalties.

D. Massachusetts

National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix. The court held the ADA applies to web-only businesses. Netflix agreed to caption 100% of its streaming library by 2014.

N.D. California

National Federation of the Blind v. Target — first major ADA web accessibility class action. Settled with a $6M damages fund and ongoing accessibility monitoring of Target.com.